PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939 (CONTINUANCE)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Major A. S. L. YOUNG) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, as amended by any subsequent Enactment, be continued in force for a further period of one year beginning with the twenty-fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-four.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEDISH IRON ORE (EXPORTS TO GERMANY

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare what proportion of the Swedish exports of iron ore to Germany come from the Grangesberg mine; and if he has any information as to who are the owners of the mine.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): The mines in question are owned by Trafic A/B Grängesberg-Oxeldsund, and constitute only a small part of the iron ore properties in the South of Sweden. The company has, however, a controlling interest in another company, namely, Luossavaara-Kurunavarra A/B, which owns the greater part of the mines in Lapland and Northern Sweden. My information is that in 1943 all these mines taken together produced between 55 and 60 per cent. of the total quantity of iron ore exported from Sweden.

Sir A. Southby: Can my hon. Friend say whether iron ore coming from this mine is carried to Germany in ships belonging to Messrs. Axel Johnson, and if so, why are they not on the black list? And why are not the Grangesberg firm on the black list, too?

Mr. Foot: Questions as to why certain firms are not on the black list should be put down.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Proposed Jewish Unit

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any statement to make on the proposed formation of a Jewish Army.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I am now examining the possibility of forming either a Jewish brigade or a Jewish brigade group. I am not at the moment in a position to make a further statement, but hope to be so very shortly.

Major Adams: Why has there been such long delay in this matter? Is anybody likely to fight with greater ardour against the Nazis than the Jews?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think there has been any undue delay.

Major Adams: Four years of war.

Sir J. Grigg: No. The last approach to me was early this year—in the first quarter of this year.

Intelligence Tests

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the increased recognition of the importance of a high standard of powers of observation and of general mental alertness, he will institute adequate examination tests in these for all candidates for commissions in the Army.

Sir J. Grigg: All recruits, on entering the Army, and all candidates for commissions are given intelligence tests, which measure their mental alertness. Candidates for commissions who pass through War Office Selection Boards—and this covers all but a small number, who are commissioned directly into technical arms—are given practical tests, which measure their powers of observa-


tion and their mental alertness. I can assure my hon. Friend that the importance of these qualities is fully appreciated.

Overseas Service

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet any report on any of the soldiers, of whose names and numbers he has been apprised, who are alleged not to have been given the advantage of the five-year limitation of overseas service.

Sir J. Grigg: The two soldiers about whom the hon. Member originally wrote to me are both serving in the South East Asia Command, and I regret that I cannot say when the report for which I have asked will arrive. The hon. Member raised a third case with me, but he has, I think, now been informed that the man has arrived in this country, and is on disembarkation leave.

Mr. Hogg: In view of the fact that one of the two earlier cases was raised with the Department as long ago as March, and that I then received an assurance that the man was coming home, can my right hon. Friend explain the delay in receiving a report from the South East Asia Command; and will he take steps to expedite it?

Sir J. Grigg: I will take whatever steps are possible to expedite it, but I imagine that the reason for the delay was that the man had gone on an operational job, in a place where communication was extremely difficult.

Mr. Hogg: Can my right hon. Friend explain why a person who is at the end of his five years' service is sent on an operational job; and can he explain why, originally, he expressed such indignation when I suggested, in a supplementary question, that that was the case?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not remember expressing indignation. But I think leave is also subject to the exigencies of the Service. Whenever a man is a key man, I can quite see that it may not be possible to give him leave at a particular juncture. But I would rather wait until I get a full report, and not deal with the matter piecemeal.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the report?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any youths of 18½ years of age are being sent to Normandy with less than six months' colour service.

Sir J. Grigg: Before a man can be sent abroad, he must be fully trained and he must be over 18½. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 11th July, the period of training varies according to the arm in which the man is, and the period of training is naturally shorter for those whose military duties are akin to their civil employment. For example, a storeman or clerk in the R.A.O.C. is usually fully trained in slightly less than three months, and in such a case the man would be fit to serve overseas, although he had had less than six months' Colour service. But the training of a fighting soldier normally takes at least six months.

Mr. Bellenger: Would the Minister agree that, other things being equal, a man should not be sent overseas with less than six months' training, if serving in a fighting unit, and if he is 18½ years of age?

Sir J. Grigg: That is certainly the natural conclusion to draw from my answer.

Mr. Burke: Will all these men receive embarkation leave before they go?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that down.

Regiment (Territorial Principle)

Wing-Commander Errington: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a regiment, of which he has been informed, is to be broken up, its officers and men drafted elsewhere and another unit given its name; and whether, in view of its close association with the borough of Bootle and surrounding areas, he is prepared to allow this regiment to remain as constituted at present.

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. and gallant Friend is under some misapprehension. This regiment is not being broken up, and its title is not being transferred to another unit. It will be necessary to withdraw men from the regiment, as reinforcements for Forces overseas, but its role will continue to be of considerable importance.

Wing-Commander Errington: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, so far as possible, the territorial principle will be preserved in regard to this regiment?

Sir J. Grigg: As far as possible; but I am bound to warn the hon. and gallant Member that, at this stage of the war, there are a good many cases in which it is not possible to maintain the territorial principle.

Colonel Greenwell: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate how much this breaking down of territorial traditions interferes with morale?

Sir J. Grigg: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that there is no breaking down of territorial tradition. It is, unfortunately, inevitable, with the present distribution of regiments—as I have explained more than once in this House— that there should be some interference with posting, but we try to do it as little as possible.

Transferred Personnel

Mr. Touche: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider arranging for R.A.F. and R.N. personnel transferred to the Army to be formed into separate brigades, in such a manner as to preserve their identification with the Service in which they enlisted.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the decision that men transferred to the Army from other Services are not to suffer any reduction of pay, he will reconsider the decision not to apply this principle when transfers take place between corps and regiments in the Army.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if men who have served for several years and earned promotion in the R.A.F. Regiment and are now to be transferred to the Army, will be granted Army ranks equivalent to their former ranks.

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for War if he can make any statement on the transference to the Army of men now in the Navy and the R.A.F.

Sir J. Grigg: These men have been, or are being, transferred to the Army in order that the fighting strength of existing units and formations may be sustained. I sympathise with their natural

desire to be formed into separate units, but to do so would be to defeat the object of the transfer. I hope that it will be possible to post the men in small groups rather than as individuals. The men transferred are being asked to express their preferences for arms and regiments, and, as far as practicable, these preferences will be followed, though some, I am afraid, are bound to be disappointed. As regards pay, the general principle is that the men transferred will not lose financially, that is, they will remain on rates no worse than their existing rates until Army service or promotion qualifies them for increases. No men are being compulsorily transferred who have N.C.O. or equivalent ranks in the other Services. As regards the Question asked by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson), these transfers are wholly abnormal, and cannot be held to affect the internal system of transfers within the Army itself.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that during the last war the Royal Naval Division was formed? Is it not possible to do something of the same kind now, when it is necessary to transfer naval personnel to Army service?

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. They are required to keep up the existing units. If new units are made the existing units will run down more quickly, and will have to be broken up, and in course of time the units formed from the transferees will run down, and will have to be broken up in the same way.

Mr. H. Lawson: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle that transference from the Navy and the Air Force to the Army is not to result in loss of pay, on what grounds does he refuse to accept that principle in the case of transference from the R.A.O.C. to other units within the Army?

Sir J. Grigg: Those transfers are quite a different thing. They are transfers within the Service, for which there has always been statutory power.

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many members of the R.A.F. are being transferred to the Army; and what arrangements will be made with regard to pay, allowances and questions of seniority.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): It would not be in the public interest to give the number of airmen to be transferred to the Army. Airmen will receive not less than the ordinary pay and good conduct badge pay which they were drawing in the R.A.F. until such time as they qualify for higher rates on promotion. Their promotion in the Army will be governed by Army rules, but all Air Force service will reckon for seniority as though it were Army service. Family and dependants' allowances will be paid at rates not less favourable than those payable at the time of transfer.

Mr. Driberg: Does that answer mean that they will receive equivalent ranks in the Army to those that they have held, or will they have to start again from scratch, having earned promotion in the R.A.F.?

Captain Balfour: They are being transferred to the Army and will hold Army ranks but will receive not less favourable pay and allowances than they are now drawing.

Mr. Driberg: I was asking about rank.

Requisitioned House Property (Release)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is able to give a precise date when house property previously requisitioned for War Office purposes, and now no longer used for such purposes, will be officially regarded as de-requisitioned.

Sir J. Grigg: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible to give any general ruling as regards the date of relinquishing requisitioned property, as every case will have to be dealt with on its merits. I can, however, assure him that I am well aware of the importance of releasing house property as early as possible, and I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on this question. My hon. Friend has sent me a general complaint relating to a certain district. If he will send me particulars of specific cases, I will gladly have them examined.

E.N.S.A. Performances (Seats)

Mr. John Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any regulation by which the first rows in the audience at any performance of E.N.S.A. are always reserved for officers and their friends.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. Seating arrangements are normally made locally between commanding officers and E.N.S.A. managers.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a practice in certain units, of officers bringing large parties of guests, and that this practice is resented by the men, who themselves are unable to pay for these seats, and who wish to avail themselves of the entertainment provided by E.N.S.A.?

Sir J. Grigg: Given the system we labour under, I am pretty certain that if there were anything more than a very sporadic discontent, I should have heard of it by now; and I have not heard of it.

Mr. Gallacher: Given the system we labour under, is it not likely that the officers will claim the best seats?

Compulsory Vaccination (Anzio Bridgehead)

Mr. Viant: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to give the results of his inquiries into the case where Private Butler, attached to the A Company of the R.A.M.C. was, at the command of the medical officer, Major Carson, and the aid of four men, forcibly vaccinated against his wish and contrary to the King's Regulations.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, I have received a report about this case. It is clear that the man was vaccinated in spite of his protests that he did not wish to be vaccinated. His left wrist was held by one man and his right elbow by another. No other men were concerned. I understand that the man had no conscientious objection to vaccination but refused because, on a previous occasion, he had suffered from a sore arm and because, in his view, the vaccinations and inoculations he had received in the Army had done him no good. The officer concerned clearly had no right to use force as he did and in normal circumstances disciplinary action would no doubt have been taken against him. But this vaccination was carried out in the Anzio bridgehead. Reinforcements were arriving from Naples, where there was an outbreak of virulent smallpox and the possibility of an outbreak in the bridgehead was causing great anxiety. In these exceptional circumstances the officer's action has been considered as an


error of judgment committed in good faith with the intention to safeguard the health of the troops in a dangerous medical situation. I do not, therefore, intend to take any disciplinary action against him.

Mr. Douglas: What reparation is to be made to this man for the assault committed on him?

Tanks

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will assure this House that our troops in Normandy are equipped with tanks at least the equal of both the German Tiger and Panther in armour and armament.

Sir J. Grigg: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) last Thursday.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Secretary of State for War recollect that, as long ago as September 1939, he told us that the tanks then coming into production were better than anything which the Germans, Japanese and Italians had? As the Tiger was then in use, is not the Minister capable of answering for himself, instead of sheltering behind the Prime Minister?

Sir J. Grigg: The Prime Minister has undertaken, before the end of this Session, to make a statement on this matter, but I think that, when my hon. Friend gets it, he will be as little satisfied with it as he was with the report on the Churchill.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. In view of the most complete humbuggery with which this matter is treated, I beg to give notice that I will raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Leave

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make arrangements to permit of privilege leave to Army personnel serving in this country.

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make any statement as to the continued ban on leave for home based troops.

Sir J. Grigg: This question is under constant review. I am most anxious that leave should be restarted as soon as operational conditions permit.

Mr. Bellenger: Are we to understand from that reply that my right hon. Friend hopes that privilege leave will be restarted very soon?

Sir J. Grigg: Well, I hope, fairly soon, anyway.

Captain Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give urgent consideration to the question of reopening agricultural leave, in view of the approaching harvest?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly look into the matter, but I must make it clear that, in the conditions of this year, there will be very much less chance or scope for releasing troops for agricultural work during the harvest than in previous years.

Sir Percy Harris: Could not the number of German and Italian prisoners available be used?

Sir J. Grigg: Most of them are already employed in agriculture.

Parliamentary Franchise (Register)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for War to what proportion of the Forces serving under his Department the forms for registration as voters have been distributed; and if he is yet in a position to announce what proportion of the recipients have actually registered.

Sir J. Grigg: As regards the first part of the hon. and learned Member's Question, I would refer him to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) on 13th June. As regards units which are at home or which were at home recently, I gave figures in answer to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) on 20th June which indicated what proportion had completed the forms. A number of fresh units have been visited since then, and the results of these visits confirm what I said in that answer. I have not yet received the reports I have asked for about the progress of the scheme in Commands overseas. As the hon. and learned Member is no doubt aware, the Service Ministers and the Home Secretary received a deputation of hon. Members on 6th July. A number of the suggestions then made are being pursued.

Mr. Pritt: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question—"what proportion of the recipients have actually registered"?

Sir J. Grigg: As I have said I gave my hon. and learned Friend the figures regarding a certain proportion of units, and I said that I have not had reports from other parts of the Army, and that the natural conclusion to be drawn is that, as regards the Army as a whole, I cannot give him the answer.

Middle East (British Beer)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that British beer is at present available for sale in the Middle East only on premises which are out of bounds for other ranks; and whether he will take steps to see that such beer shall be available to other ranks as well as to officers.

Sir J. Grigg: Since the beginning of this year no British beer has been consigned for troops or civilians in Egypt. Beer is brewed locally and is available to both other ranks and officers through Institutes in the usual way. The hon. and learned Member is probably referring to one consignment of British beer which was exported under civilian auspices before the ban on exports was imposed, was landed by mistake in Egypt, and was sold by a local civilian purchaser to civilian caterers. Had it been imported under military or N.A.A.F.I. control, it would have been distributed for consumption in Regimental Institutes, canteens and messes in the same way as the beer now being brewed in Egypt.

Sir Herbert Williams: Would it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to solve two problems at once, if he arranged that the qualification to draw beer was the production of a certificate that the man had registered as an elector?

Post-War Employment (Vocational Training)

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now give any further information to the House in connection with the vocational training for post-war employment and education in general, to be given to Army and A.T.S. personnel prior to their release from the Service.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the variety of training provided under this scheme is sufficient

to provide preparation for all the different courses that personnel will follow when they leave the Forces?

Sir J. Grigg: I shall be very grateful if my hon. and learned Friend will read this very considerable answer. There is a very wide variety of preparation being made, but I could not presume to give a guarantee that every conceivable thing will be catered for.

Captain Cobb: Will these education schemes be compulsory or voluntary?

Sir J. Grigg: I shall be very grateful if my hon. and gallant Friend will read the answer.

Following is the statement:

The Government have already announced their plans for providing financial assistance to enable suitably qualified men and women, on release from the Services, to undertake or continue further education or training beyond the secondary school standard. A statement of the Government's proposals to provide training as part of the resettlement scheme was made in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Whitechapel and St. George's (Mr. Walter Edwards) on 6th April. For a long period, careful consideration has been given to the question of providing facilities for education and training inside the Army after the defeat of Germany, and to the need for coordinating the Army Education Scheme as closely as possible with the training plans described above. The task of the Committee which, under the Chairmanship of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for War, considered this problem was seriously complicated by the considerable number of factors which were at that time incalculable. The recommendations made by this Committee have been considered by the Army Council. The Army Council have given authority for active preparations to be started and have arranged for effective co-operation with the other Services, the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Board of Education, and the Scottish Department of Education.

The general lines of the scheme now under consideration are such that in each unit there shall be available facilities for officers, other ranks and auxiliaries to participate each week in some form of education for a definite number of hours


in working or training time. These plans cannot be completed in detail until the military situation is much clearer and until the disposition of the Army can be foreseen. One factor which has constantly to be remembered is that the requirements of the war in the Far East must have overriding consideration until that too has been brought to a successful conclusion.

The background to the whole scheme is that the officer, soldier and auxiliary should leave the Army with increased understanding of those problems of citizenship of which every member of a vital democracy should have knowledge. The educational provision is being planned, with expert advice made available by the Board of Education, to include the greatest possible degree of variety and a large measure of practical work. The courses and practical occupations provided will in the main be general, but the subjects and activities more directly connected with vocations and trades will find a place, as well as those relating to life in society generally. Plans to provide, on a selective basis and under special conditions, a relatively small number of courses in preparation for professional and trade qualifications are being worked out, but the extent and nature of this provision will necessarily depend upon the circumstances that exist at the time, and upon the precise arrangements that are made for the education and training of men and women on their release from the Army. All such arrangements for direct vocational preparation will be concerted in all appropriate cases in full consultation with the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

The responsibility for making satisfactory educational arrangements will be placed upon the units and formations concerned, assisted by expert advice from the War Office Directorate of Army Education and the Army Educational Corps. The teachers and instructors required will be selected from those who are themselves unlikely to be eligible for early release. Preparations for the implementation of this scheme are proceeding as rapidly as can be expected during a period in which the strenuous prosecution of the war is the paramount consideration. The desire for full information about employment conditions, facilities for education and training and vocational guidance has not been overlooked. Arrangements to meet

the needs of soldiers and auxiliaries are being fully discussed by the War Office and the Ministry of Labour and National Service. The material needs of so considerable an educational scheme are now receiving attention. So far as restrictions allow, books and equipment will be made ready for use in advance.

A feature of the war-time Army Education Scheme has been its close collaboration with the universities, the adult education organizations and civilian education generally. Active consultations are taking place with the Central Advisory Council for Adult Education in His Majesty's Forces in order to ensure that the co-operation which has been so fruitful in the past shall continue during the interim period which will follow an armistice. The Army's educational scheme is being devised not as an end in itself but as a means to enable those men and women who are making so large a contribution to victory and will be required to continue in the Service for a time as a contribution towards final victory and security for the future, to spend part of their time in preparing themselves for all the demands of active, democratic citizenship in a period of re-construction. The importance of such a scheme in the interim Army is equalled only by the great opportunities it offers.

Demobilisation

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be able to make a further statement regarding the proposals of his Department for demobilisation.

Sir J. Grigg: I am afraid I am not in a position to say when it will be possible to make a statement on this subject which, with other connected questions, is a matter of general Government policy.

Mr. Hutchinson: Is the Minister able to hold out any prospect that a statement on this subject will be made early after the Recess?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not really for me to hold out this prospect.

Enemy Casualties, Normandy

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Germans killed in Normandy and the number of Germans captured.

Mr. Alfred Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of prisoners of war made to date in the course of operations in France; how many have surrendered; how many are nationals of countries occupied or invaded by Germany since 1938; and what is the Government's policy as regards prisoners of war who are nationals of one of our Allies.

Sir J. Grigg: Possibly about 20,000 Germans have been killed by the Allied Armies in Normandy. Up to 16th July they had captured 57,750 prisoners. Of these, just under 5,000 were nationals of countries occupied or invaded by Germany since 1938. Arrangements for the disposal of nationals of Allied countries are made in conjunction with the Government concerned.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if, when he speaks of German prisoners in this connection, any of these are civilians, or are they all soldiers?

Sir J. Grigg: I would like to have notice of that question. I am not quite sure what the status of the Todt organisation is.

Cairo Forces Forum

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is now able to state the frequency of meeting and average attendance at the Cairo Forces Forum.

Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir. I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when this information will be available, seeing that I put down a Question to him on this matter a long time ago?

Sir J. Grigg: Quite frankly, I have not asked for information, as it does not seem to be a matter of sufficient interest.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the Forces Forum has not met, because no soldiers have attended?

Sir J. Grigg: If that is the case, I think the only possible conclusion to draw is that the original public meetings were a species of political exhibitionism which it was quite right for the Commander-in-Chief to restrict.

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. If a Question is put down on the Paper with your permission, has a

Minister any right to say that quite frankly he did not trouble to get the information?

Mr. Speaker: I should think that the Minister did not mean that. I think he said that he had not made special inquiries from Cairo. That was the meaning of the expression, surely.

Mr. G. Strauss: In view of the very wide interest in this question, which has been shown in this House many times, surely the least the Minister can do, when a question is asked about this matter, is to make an inquiry, and if he does not do that, is it not very discourteous to this House?

Sir J. Grigg: I am called upon to make a vast number of inquiries and a great many of them take up the time of commanders-in-chief which might be spent on obviously more important duties; and surely, I am entitled to wait until I get information from Cairo on a matter which is not of the great public importance which the hon. Member assumes.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Is not this an organised attempt to rule the Army by politics?

Mr. A. Edwards: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reply of the Minister, who seems to think he can answer Members with studied offensiveness, what steps can hon. Members take to ensure that their questions are answered? On this occasion he expressed the opinion that it was of no public importance and he really had not taken the trouble to put the question. This is astounding and contemptible.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order for me. After all, a Minister is responsible to the House, and it is for the House and not for me to deal with a Minister.

Earl Winterton: I rise on a point of Order to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the term "studied offensiveness," which seems to be quite new in a point of Order, is in Order?

Mr. Speaker: I should think that it is in Order, though I should say that it is regrettable.

Mr. Cocks: Is not offensiveness the only quality which the Secretary of State for War has got?

Sir Richard Acland: May I press for an answer on this point, Mr. Speaker, because it seems to me that, if this is allowed to go by unchallenged, there is almost no point on which the Minister may not say it is of so little importance that he does not choose to answer it? What is the machinery by which the House or you, Sir, decide whether a Minister is justified in saying that or not?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet forgets that it is always within the power of any Minister to refuse to answer any question if he thinks that it is in the public interest to do so. That is a Minister's prerogative.

Sir R. Acland: The Minister is not saying that it is not in the public interest. He is claiming, against the very strong view of a minority of Members, that this matter of political discussion in the Army is one of so little importance that he is not called upon to answer. He does not say that it is not in the public interest to answer it but that it is so unimportant.

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps I can make my position clear. These incidents in Cairo were likely to lead to breaches of discipline, and the most important thing in the Army is the preservation of discipline. I, personally, do regard it as contrary to the public interest that further advertisement should be given to this attempt to subvert discipline.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister is aware that the Forces Forum was a fake, and that it never meets, why does he not openly make that statement in answer to the Question, instead of dodging behind the facts?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICA STAR (WEST AFRICAN TROOPS)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for War under what conditions the Africa Star is conferred on Nigerian and other West African troops; and what is the approximate number of Nigerian and other West African troops, respectively, entitled to receive the star as a result of service in Abyssinia.

Sir J. Grigg: Nigerian and other West African troops qualify for the Africa Star by service in an operational command,

namely, North Africa, Abyssinia, Kenya, in the same way as other troops. The number of West African troops qualifying by service in Abyssinia is not available in the War Office. There must be many thousands of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Married Women Teachers (Fife)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether he is aware that Fife County Education Committee are dispensing with the services of married women teachers on one week's notice; whether he is satisfied that there is a surplus of teachers in that county; and whether such surplus will be made available for other areas in need of teachers;
(2) whether married women teachers, whose services are terminated by Fife County Education Committee will receive the usual monthly notice or pay in lieu thereof.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Allan Chapman): I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to answer Questions 30 and 31 together. My right hon. Friend is informed that of 42 married women teachers temporarily employed by Fife Education Authority whose engagements were, in accordance with practice, formally terminated at the end of the session, seven were released at their own request, eight have been already re-engaged and the remainder, 21 of whom were engaged on a day-to-day basis, will be offered reappointment next session. No notice was required in the case of the teachers who are engaged on a day-to-day basis; the others are being given a month's notice or pay in lieu thereof. So far from there being any surplus of teachers in the county there is likely to be a continued shortage.

Housing Subsidy

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the section of the Report of the Private Enterprise Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee dealing with the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act; and if he will now consider introducing legislation to raise the maximum value of a house for the purpose of the corresponding Act in Scotland.

Mr. Chapman: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health announced on 13th July that for the purpose of advances the Government have decided to reconsider the present limit of £800. The necessary amendment of the Scottish Act will probably be included in the Measure to be introduced in due course with regard to housing subsidies.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he can say if legislation will be introduced this Session?

Mr. Chapman: I do not think that it is likely that legislation will be introduced in this Session. The question of limits referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question will probably have to wait until we have settled the size of the housing subsidy.

Hydro-Electric Scheme

Captain W. T. Shaw: asked the Secretary of State far Scotland if he will undertake that the 40 days during which objections to the schemes put forward by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board can be lodged in his Department shall not be specified so that they fall while the House of Commons is in Recess.

Mr. Chapman: Under the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Board are required, after the approval of a constructional scheme by the Electricity Commissioners, to submit it to the Secretary of State for confirmation and to publish a notice specifying a period of 40 days within which objection to the scheme may be made. If after the expiry of this period and after such public enquiry as may be necessary, the scheme is confirmed, it must lie before Parliament for a further period of 40 days; and the Act provides that in reckoning this period no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days. The possibility of any objector being prejudiced does not therefore arise.

Captain Shaw: While thanking my hon. Friend for his answer regarding the specified days during which the objectors can make objections, and the period of 40 days, save those when the House may be in Recess, may I ask for an assurance

that during these specified days objectors or people who want information will have the opportunity to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Chapman: The Act provides for 40 days for representation, excluding, apart from any period of less than four days, periods during which Parliament is adjourned, but as to specified days, I should like to have notice, and I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

Furnished Houses (Sub-letting)

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in consequence of a successful appeal by the tenant of a furnished villa at Crieff to the tribunal established in accordance with the Rent of Furnished Houses Control Act the tenant received notice to quit; and what action is being taken to protect such tenants.

Mr. Chapman: My right hon. Friend is informed that legal proceedings for the ejection of the tenant have been instituted because of an alleged breach of the letting conditions which prohibit sub-letting. The issue is one of fact which must be determined by the Court and has no relevance to the type of case in which my right hon. Friend is exercising powers of requisitioning.

Mr. Mathers: Is my hon. Friend aware that I put this Question down because of its general interest, in order to show what protection the new Act affords to tenants of furnished houses, and will he see that the conclusion arrived at finally is given publicity?

Mr. Chapman: Only in a case of victimisation would my right hon. Friend, for instance, exercise his powers to requisition and he is not satisfied in this particular case that that arises, but my hon. Friend has drawn attention to this point.

Mr. McGovern: Is the hon. Member aware that a number of people who have been successful in having their rents reduced, are subject to all manner of trouble at the hands of people who are owners or who have taken a house; and would he consider taking action in those cases in order to protect any tenants threatened with eviction?

Mr. Chapman: Each case must be judged on its merits. If there is any breach of contract, my right hon. Friend


would not hesitate to take action, where he thought there was victimisation.

Mr. McGovern: Could not the hon. Gentleman consider at least issuing a warning to people in this position because they are taking advantage of it?

Mr. Chapman: I think that these questions and answers have met that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Recruitment

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that there is a falling off of boys from mining families going into the mines; and will he take steps to get the views of parents as to the cause of this so that remedies can be found to meet it.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." While I am much concerned to see a further considerable improvement in the matter, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Committee on the Recruitment and Training of Juveniles in the Coalmining Industry, which reported in July, 1942, heard evidence and received statements from many representative bodies and individuals. In these circumstances I do not think any useful purpose would be served at present by making further inquiries of the kind suggested.

Mr. Tinker: What steps is the Minister taking to find out the reason behind this falling off, because there is a grave cause and he ought to find out as much about it as he can?

Major Lloyd George: As my hon. Friend knows, the inquiry itself, which lead to the Forster Report, took evidence from people qualified to know what the conditions in the mining areas are, and since then I have made my own inquiries and I am satisfied that we know as much as we can know.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that this anti-pit psychology has sunk very deep among mining families, and that no remedy will be found unless the industry is transformed into a public service?

Major Lloyd George: I would not altogether say that. It is not altogether found in the mining areas of the country

as a whole. My object and aim is to make this industry attractive for its own sake.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the Minister inquire whether this phenomenon is peculiar to Great Britain, or also applies to America, France and Poland?

Mr. Tinker: I desire to give notice that I shall raise this matter again on the Adjournment, at the first opportunity, because I think it wants to be ventilated more fully.

Price Increase

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether there is to be an increase in the price of coal in the near future.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, there will be an increase of 4s. a ton in the price of coal, as from 1st August. This price increase is required first to meet the cost of the increased wages paid under the Porter Awards and as a result of other negotiations of which I have informed the House, and second to liquidate, as soon as is reasonably possible, advances made by the Treasury to the Charges Account in order to enable the higher wages to be paid before prices were increased, to meet other costs which were not fully covered by the earlier price increase, and to maintain the owners' credit balances.

Mr. Barnes: Did the Government give full consideration to the reactions of a price increase of this kind throughout industry, before they decided to put the whole cost on to the consumer?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, every consideration was taken into account.

Mr. Thorne: Will the increase apply to the thousands of tons of coal which are already in stock?

Major Lloyd George: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means.

Mr. Thorne: There are thousands of tons of coal in stock. Will the price increase apply to them?

Major Lloyd George: Certainly.

Mr. Mathers: At 4s. per ton, what will be the increase per cwt.?

Major Lloyd George: In most cases, I think it will be between 2d. and 3d.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Clothing and Household Linen (Reception Areas)

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to provide additional clothing and household linen to meet the increased demand in the evacuation areas.

Sir Richard Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will allot extra coupons for household necessities to householders who have accepted evacuees.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): Towels are the only household necessities which require coupons. I am arranging with my right hon. and learned Friend, the Minister of Health, to make towels available, coupon-free, with other household goods, to householders who have not enough to meet the additional strain imposed by billeting official evacuees. I regret that the shortage of sheets makes it impossible to include them in this scheme. Arrangements have also been made to ensure that all official evacuees have adequate clothing. I have instructed my area distribution officers to keep a close watch on supplies of clothing and other essential goods in reception areas.

Mrs. Tate: Is the Minister including household cloths in towels?

Mr. Dalton: Towels and tea towels are the only household goods requiring coupons. I am putting a supply of these at the disposal of the Minister of Health, for distribution.

Mr. Barnes: Could not the Minister go the whole hog and take these towels off coupons?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. If I had not placed towels on coupons I would have had no stock to-day to place at the disposal of evacuees. That is a justification for my policy.

Dyed Hessian

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the President of the Board of Trade at what price per yard does he authorise the sale of dyed hessian for the benefit of welfare for the troops in the County of Middlesex; and will he state the wholesale and retail prices for such material.

Mr. Dalton: Only very small stocks of dyed hessian now remain in retailers' hands, further manufacture being controlled by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, and limited to essential war purposes. There are no ceiling prices for the old stocks, which are subject only the Prices of Goods Act, 1939.

Sir R. Blair: Is the Minister aware that the County Welfare Officer is obliged to pay 5s. 11d. per yard and is being offered as much as he wants at 1s. 9d.? In order to save public money, will the right hon. Gentleman give approval to this officer to pay the lower price?

Mr. Dalton: The stocks remaining are very small, and if my hon. Friend would like to discuss this particular case with me I would be glad to do so. It is not worth while going through the elaborate procedure of fixing prices for these very small stocks.

Utility Furniture (Additional Ration)

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to increase the allowance of utility furniture to those eligible for it.

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now make a statement with regard to an increased supply of utility furniture for those who have suffered from bomb damage.

Mr. Dalton: I am very glad to say that, as a result of a steady increase in the production of utility furniture during the last six months, and a consequent reduction in the volume of orders outstanding, I am now able to restore the ration to the level at which it stood before 1st September last. This restoration will take place in stages. As from 1st August next the additional ration will be made available to all those who received permits for utility furniture between 1st September and 31st December last. As production progresses, those who have received permits for furniture since 31st December, and those who receive such permits in future, will become entitled to the additional ration. An announcement will be made about this later. One of the main purposes of the Utility Furniture Scheme is, as the House knows, to help those whose homes have suffered bomb damage.

Knitting Wool

Mr. Higgs: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether more wool will be released and on easier terms for knitting, in view of the needs of the Forces and the liberated European populations.

Mr. Dalton: The supply of knitting wool is very limited, and all that is available is already being released in order to meet the home civilian ration, the needs of the Forces and the relief of liberated Europe.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that wool is appreciated by the Forces, and that it has a low cost of production? When he has additional supplies will he give the matter his first consideration?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, as soon as supplies increase I shall be glad to make a further distribution.

Steel Exports

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the change in the steel position, which will enable this country to export 10,000 tons per month to the U.S.A., he will now remove the restrictions limiting the export of fish-hooks to parts of the British Empire outside the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Dalton: No. Sir. The exports to the United States, to which my hon. Friend refers, consists of shipbuilding plates, and the arrangement is a special and temporary one. There is still a shortage of steel in this country, and we are importing large quantities from the United States.

Household Lines Supplies, Rugby

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of sheets, pillow cases and tablecloths in the Rugby area; that one firm has only had three pairs of sheets in the last three years to dispose of; that sheets are being hawked from door to door in Rugby at £3 to £4 a pair while traders can get little or no supply; and if he will take steps to direct supplies of these articles to the Rugby area.

Mr. Dalton: I have called for a special report on the supply of household linen in the Rugby area, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I receive it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENT) ACT

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now name the date on which the Prevention of, Fraud (Investment) Act, 1939, will come into full operation.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I have fixed Tuesday, 8th August, as the appointed day on which the Act will come into full operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE AND CIVILIAN CASUALTIES (GREAT BRITAIN)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will issue a tabulated statement showing the number of casualties, fatal and non-fatal, for each of the years 1939 to 1943, respectively, on the roads of this country, in factories, mines and quarries, on merchant ships, civilians killed and injured by enemy action and those covering British men and women serving in His Majesty's Forces.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. I do not consider that the time and labour involved in obtaining these details would be justified at the present moment.

Mr. Davies: Would it not be well if the people of this country were brought face to face with the fatalities and casualties that occur? Further, would my right hon. Friend be good enough to acquaint the Commission on Population with these casualties?

Mr. Attlee: I am sure that they will be informed.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that all this information is normally collected by Government Departments, what is the objection to putting it into one table?

Mr. Attlee: I understand that it would involve extra work for a staff which is already hard pressed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTORAL REFORM (SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)

Sir Douglas Hacking: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received the Final Report of the Conference on Electoral Reform and Redistribution of Seats presided over by Mr. Speaker; and if he has any statement to make.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received on 20th July a letter from you, Mr. Speaker, giving the recommendations of the Conference on the last of their terms of reference—namely, conduct and costs of Parliamentary elections, and expenses falling on candidates and Members of Parliament. He is arranging for this report to be presented to Parliament as a Command Paper. Prints will be available shortly. This report completes the work of the Conference; and the Prime Minister welcomes this opportunity of expressing the warm thanks of His Majesty's Government to you, Sir, and to all the members for the prompt way in which the Conference has discharged its task. The resolutions which have been submitted on the many difficult and important questions involved will be of the utmost value.

Sir D. Hacking: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the compliments he pays to members of the Conference, is he aware that any success that has been achieved by the Conference is very largely due to the tact, courtesy and ability of our Chairman?

Earl Winterton: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will give consideration to the need for making public at the earliest possible opportunity His Majesty's Government's views on the subject of redistribution, in view of the fact that a number of us are most vitally affected by the matter?

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, we have that very fully in mind.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Report comes before the House, in view of its many serious limitations, will it be in Order to refer it back for reconsideration?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (ACCOMMODATION)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give time for the discussion of the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk relative to the Palace of Westminster (Accommodation).

[That a message be sent to the Lords to put their Lordships in mind that they have appointed a Committee to join with a Committee of this House to enquire into the accommodation in the Palace of

Westminster and to put their Lordships in mind that no place or time has been fixed for the meeting of the Joint Committee.]

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): No, Sir. I am informed that arrangements are being made for the first meeting of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster (Accommodation) and that a message is expected shortly from another place.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE ACTS (CONTINUANCE)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue the National Service Acts on the conclusion of hostilities with Germany.

Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir, they will operate throughout the present emergency which will not end until after the defeat of both Germany and Japan.

Mr. Bellenger: Would my right hon. Friend reconsider that point of view, as both in the military Forces and amongst the civil population it is felt that there will not be the necessity for the same rigorous application of these Acts on the conclusion of hostilities with Germany?

Mr. Attlee: I think we had better postpone those views until we hear all the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Local Authorities (Post-War Borrowing)

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to make any statement about his discussions with local authorities on the provision of funds to meet their capital purposes after the war.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): Yes, Sir. I have now discussed this matter with representatives of various Associations of local authorities in England and Wales and have conveyed to them certain proposals which the Government desire to adopt. These proposals are set out in a memorandum which I handed to the associations and of which I am circulating a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have invited the associations to give the matter their care-


ful consideration and to submit any observations they desire to make. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has similarly conveyed the Government's proposals to representatives of various associations of Scottish local authorities and invited their observations.

Following is the Memorandum:

BORROWING BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES AFTER THE WAR

1. The Government desire to make, in the period immediately after the war, an important change in the methods by which local authorities at present satisfy their borrowing needs.

2. It is clear that for a period (which cannot vet be defined) after the end of hostilities in Europe the combined demands of the Central Government, local authorities and industry on the capital market will be very great. The Central Government will for a time have to borrow to meet an inevitable Budget excess of current expenditure over current revenue; it will also have to meet such charges as compensation for war damage, repayment of postwar credits, and those capital programmes which have to be financed centrally. Local authorities will require to incur very considerable capital expenditure in connection with the reconstruction of damaged areas and the development of various public services (e.g., housing, education and water supplies). Industry will likewise require to finance much capital reconstruction in order to effect the conversion of plant and machinery from war to peace purposes and to make good arrears of technical development.

3. All this capital expenditure will be vitally necessary in the national interest and it is essential that it should be financed not merely in an orderly manner but as cheaply as possible. As a matter of public policy, therefore, interest rates must be kept low and the Government must have all the powers and facilities necessary to make that policy effective. In particular, anything in the nature of a scramble between competitors for capital finance, which would undoubtedly be prejudicial to that policy, must clearly be avoided. The demands made by all parties on the capital market must be so co-ordinated that they are made at the times, and by the methods, which are most helpful in the general interest. The control of issues of capital, in conjunction with any necessary controls of physical resources, will go a long way towards securing that objective. On the other hand, there may at times be some delay in the making of issues permitted under such control, and essential public services—local as well as central—must as far as possible be protected from any delay in execution on that account.

4. As part of a policy designed to secure the above objectives, and so long as the conditions necessitating that policy substantially continue, the Government propose that all local authorities should (with the exceptions mentioned in the next paragraph) borrow only from a central source which will be supplied with the neces-

sary funds by the Treasury. Such a procedure will have obvious advantages both for the Treasury and for local authorities. The necessary funds will be raised by the Treasury as and when it is most convenient from the point of view of its general borrowing programme and of the state of the market from time to time. Local authorities will get essential finance whenever they need it and will not be subject to market delays. The rates of interest on their borrowing will be determined by the Central Government's own credit, as measured by the market rates for Treasury issues of corresponding periods, with the addition of a very small charge for management expenses.

5. As exceptions from the requirement that local authorities should borrow only from a central source, it is proposed that any local authority should be free

(a) to borrow on mortgage (subject to any rules in force as to the periods of mortgages) up to the amount necessary to provide for repayments of existing mortgages;
(b) to borrow surplus funds which other local authorities have available for investment;
(c) to borrow from their own sinking funds, superannuation funds and other similar internal funds to meet capital expenditure, as at present; and
(d) to exercise existing powers of borrowing temporarily by bank overdraft (or, in some cases, under Local Act powers, by bills) but only for the purposes of (i) meeting expenses intended to be met ultimately out of a loan which it has been authorised to raise, and (ii) anticipating revenue.

6. It is proposed that the central source referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 above should be the Local Loans Fund. The existing arrangements by which loans may not be granted to local authorities with rateable values over £200,000 to meet expenditure under Local Acts, or for commercial undertakings, will be cancelled. Arrangements will be made whereby the necessary administration of loans from the Fund by the Public Works Loan Board is coordinated with existing departmental procedure with a view to affording the maximum convenience to local authorities. Legislation will be promoted to enable the Public Works Loan Board to lend for those purposes for which local authorities have power to borrow but for which the Board have at present no power to lend.

For the purposes of supplying resources to the Local Loans Fund the Treasury already has power (so far unused) to issue any kind of other security instead of Local Loans Stock. It is proposed to take the further alternative power to make issues direct to the Local Loans Fund, if and when it is so desired, from the Consolidated Fund and out of the proceeds of the Treasury's borrowings generally.

7. The Treasury (in conjunction with the Ministry of Health) would like to be in a position to proceed at an early date with the drafting of the legislation necessary to give effect to these proposals; but before doing so, they will be glad if the representative associations of local authorities will give the matter full consideration. The Departments will welcome dis-


cussion of any suggestions, consistent with the general policy, which the associations desire to make.

Note.—The same Memorandum was handed to the representatives of the Associations of Scottish Local Authorities, subject to necessary minor changes and to the addition of the following paragraph after paragraph 4:—

"As local authorities are aware, it has been necessary during the war for the consent of the Secretary of State to be obtained to borrowing for capital expenditure. This requirement has been generally accepted under war conditions and its continuance will be essential so long as the conditions necessitating the general policy outlined in paragraph 3 exist."

Social Services (Cost)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the approximate cost to the taxpayers and ratepayers of the existing and prospective commitments for social services; and will he give the comparable figures for 1913 and 1938.

Sir J. Anderson: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir W. Smithers: As the figures must show an enormous increase, and in view of all the unknown factors, and especially in view of the speech of the Minister of Reconstruction in another place, do the Government think it is right to raise hopes which will not possibly——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member does not seem to be asking for information; he is asking for an opinion.

Sir W. Smithers: May I finish my question, Mr. Speaker? Do the Government think it right to raise false hopes which must end in bitter disillusion?

Sir J. Anderson: I have no comment to make in view of what Mr. Speaker has just said.

Following its the answer:

The latest available figures of the cost of public social services are those contained in the statement furnished in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on 16th December, 1943. This statement gave the total expenditure in the financial year 1941 as £520,859,000. As my predecessor explained to my hon. Friend on 22nd June, 1943, figures for 1913 are not available, but the cost of these services in 1910 was £62,817,000 and in 1938, £530,854,000. The last complete return

of Public Social Services is that published in November, 1938 (Cmd. 5906), which shows expenditure in the year 1936 and an estimate for 1937. As regards the future, no complete estimate of the cost of prospective commitments in this field is yet possible. The financial memorandum which accompanied the Education Bill contained estimates of the cost of the proposals for educational reform embodied in the Bill. The finance of the proposed National Health Service is dealt with in Appendix E to the White Paper on that subject. The finance of the Government's proposals for social insurance will be dealt with in the forthcoming White Paper. The existing services covered by those proposals include unemployment insurance and assistance, cash benefits under the National Health Insurance Acts, contributory and old age pensions, supplementary pensions, and out-door relief. The remaining major services in this field are housing, for which no estimates of prospective commitments are yet possible, and war pensions, the cost of which will depend upon the future course of the war.

Child Adoption (Income Tax Relief)

Major Procter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a legal adoption under the Adoption of Children Act is essential as a condition of granting the Income Tax relief for an adopted child, or whether it is sufficient that the taxpayer can prove that he has the maintenance and custody of the child.

Sir J. Anderson: If the parent has relinquished any claim to the allowance it is sufficient for the taxpayer to prove that he has the custody of the child and maintains it at his own expense.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that pensioners who are looking forward to an increase under the Pensions (Increase) Act are awaiting information as to when and how they may receive information regarding the increase to which they are entitled; and will he publish this information.

Sir J. Anderson: The interval which has elapsed since the passage of the Pensions (Increase) Act is regrettable but, I am


afraid, inevitable. The necessary Treasury Regulations under the Act were made and presented to Parliament on 20th June. Since then the application forms have been printed and delivered to the Departments concerned. The forms are now being distributed to the pensioners and on return will be dealt with as rapidly as present staffing difficulties permit. Increases, when granted, will take effect from 1st January, 1944, so that the pensioners will not be prejudiced by the time required for those various processes.

Professor Savory: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether these forms have reached Ulster for the Royal Irish Constabulary?

Sir J. Anderson: There is no reason to think they have not.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that sufficient publicity is given to his answer, because there is great perturbation amongst these people, who are at a loss to know why they have never had any information?

Sir J. Anderson: The forms are in process of issue now, and everyone concerned will very soon know, exactly what steps he should take. I hope, however, that the Question and answer will serve to allay any distress there may be.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether the forms that are being issued will give the applicant for an increased pension, information as to what he will be entitled to under the Pension (Increase) Act? Many of us are getting scores of letters asking what is the amount to which they are entitled.

Sir J. Anderson: I will see that my hon. Friend has a copy of the form.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBERATED COUNTRIES (CURRENCY)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will assure this House that the policy of issuing Anglo-American currency in both Italy and France and in other countries as and when they are freed from German occupation, will not in any way cause the countries concerned forcibly to accept gold in whole or part redemption of this paper currency.

Sir J. Anderson: I can give to the House the assurance which the hon. Member suggests, but I must not be regarded as accepting some of the assumptions which appear to underlie his Question.

Sir Irving Albery: Arising out of that reply, is it not a fact that both these countries have always in the past been very willing recipients of any gold available on suitable conditions?

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY PUBLICATIONS (PAPER)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the estimated life of the paper on which the bound copies of HANSARD and the Journal of the House placed in the Library are now printed.

Captain McEwen (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. Under normal conditions of use and storage the life will be not less than 75 years.

Mr. Keeling: Will my hon. and gallant Friend ask the Stationery Office to consider printing a few copies for the Library of this House and the national libraries on special paper which will have a much longer life, in the same way as there is a special edition of "The Times" for libraries? We ourselves can read the Journal of the sixteenth century.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALLHOLDERS (WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION)

Sir A. Knox: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to what extent a smallholder can obtain compensation for damage to his holding on account of enemy action.

Mr. Dalton: I have been asked to reply. A smallholder can obtain full compensation for war damage to his equipment, crops and livestock by insurance under the Business Scheme (Farming) of the War Damage Act. If the total value of these goods does not exceed £100 they can be treated as if they were insurable under the Private Chattels Scheme, and the free cover afforded under that scheme would apply. Compensation for damage to land or buildings falls under Part I of the War Damage Act.

Sir A. Knox: Do I understand from that reply that if the damage does not exceed £100 he gets that amount without previous insurance?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Under the present scheme there are sometimes rather unfortunate delays in giving these men money to which they are entitled and of which they are in need.

Mr. Dalton: I shall be only too glad to speed up the procedure in hard cases as far as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLACK-OUT RESTRICTIONS

Major Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now any statement to make with regard to the removal or modification of the black-out during the forthcoming longer nights, even though hostilities against Germany are prolonged into the winter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Ellen Wilkinson): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which the Home Secretary gave on 6th July to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans).

Major Adams: Does my hon. Friend imagine that that answer will be of very much value? May I ask why the Department is so long in deciding to relax a Regulation which is not only morally depressing but is now of very doubtful strategic value?

Miss Wilkinson: On the first part of the question, all my right hon. Friend's answers are of the greatest value. On the second part of the question, the matter, as my right hon. Friend replied, is under his active consideration.

Mr. Higgs: But is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that if the black-out in factories could be reduced by one and a half to two hours a day, in the darkest days of the year, a large number of factories, working only on day shift, need not be blacked out at all?

Miss Wilkinson: I can only remind my hon. Friend that the Supply Ministries, who know the position very well, have not in fact used the relaxations of the black-out that are allowed by the Home Office.

Major Adams: May I ask my hon. Friend to answer this Question seriously? On what advice do she and her right hon. Friend found their indecision?

Miss Wilkinson: On the advice of our advisers, and on the many channels of information which are open to Ministers of the Crown.

Oral Answers to Questions — BATTLE TRAINING AREAS, SOUTH WEST ENGLAND (DAMAGE, RE PAIR)

Mr. Jewson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the work of repairing premises damaged on the battle training grounds in the South-west of England is being done by his Department before the premises are handed back, or is he arranging for the necessary labour and materials to be made available to occupiers.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): In view of the urgent need to reinstate agriculture in the South-West battle training area, arrangements are being made for such repairs to be done to more lightly damaged houses as will make them reasonably habitable when they can be released from requisition. In so far as such repairs fall short of the compensation to which the owners are entitled, the difference will be made up by a money payment. As regards the comparatively few premises too badly damaged to allow of repairs of this kind, the owners will receive the statutory compensation and will make their own arrangements for the repairs, applying themselves for the necessary building licences. I have no doubt they will be given all possible assistance for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN EGGS

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Food if he can give any information in connection with the number of eggs that are being sent from Canada.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): No shell eggs are at present being imported from Canada into the United Kingdom. Canada's exportable surplus of eggs is being converted into dried egg and sent to this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLIND PERSONS (EMPLOY MENT)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health if he can state the number of blind persons there are in the United Kingdom; how many are fully employed; and, if they are, what reports he receives as to the degree of satisfaction given by them at the places, of employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): At 31st March, 1943, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of registered blind persons in the United Kingdom was about 90,000. About 10,000 were employed or working on their own account, but some of these (perhaps 1,000) were part-time workers only. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service that the reports on blind persons engaged in ordinary industry are very satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (CLOCK)

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Major VYVYAN ADAMS:
66. To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will arrange to have a second clock placed behind Mr. Speaker's Chair.

Major Adams: As this Question has been answered by action, should I be in Order, Sir, in thanking the hon. Gentleman for his gracious and courteous response?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (INTERNAL SITUATION)

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Is the Leader of the House in a position to make any statement about the internal situation in Germany?

Mr. Eden: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a considered statement on the recent dramatic developments in Germany. The German Government have, not unnaturally, been at great pains to prevent information leaving the country. They have great experience and skill in the machinery of repression and secrecy and we are, therefore, for the present mainly dependent upon our assessment of the various and often contradictory public statements made during

the last few days by the German leaders. The existing information at our disposal is not yet sufficient to enable us to estimate the full extent of the trouble in Germany or to draw any inferences as to its likely development. For the present, therefore, I prefer to make no further statement on this subject. I would only add that, while we may justly draw encouragement from the recent news, it should spur us to further activity to ensure Germany's final defeat in the field at the earliest possible date.

Sir I. Albery: Has my right hon. Friend approached our Russian Allies to know whether they can give any information?

Mr. Eden: Yes we have been in communication on the matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Greenwood: Has the Leader of the House any statement to make about an alteration in Business and will such alteration affect the Prime Minister's forthcoming statement?

Mr. Eden: There is no change in the arrangement for the Prime Minister's statement and the Debate on the war situation but, as regards this week, in order to allow more time for consultation, we propose to postpone the Second Reading of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill, which was announced for Friday, and to take instead the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, upon which a Debate on Indian affairs will take place. We propose to take the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill in the following week.

Mr. Bowles: Will the Prime Minister's statement be made on the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Mr. Eden: Yes, and the Debate will take place.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is there any likelihood of extending the time for the Indian Debate if a large number of Members want to speak? We have had only one Debate on India in the whole of the Session, and it is a large subject.

Mr. Eden: It is a Friday and it has never been our custom to extend our hours on a Friday. I should like to consider it.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In view of the conclusion of the Bretton Woods Conference, can my right hon. Friend say if an opportunity will be offered to the House for consideration of the results of that Conference before we rise?

Mr. Eden: No, it was not the intention of the Government to provide facilities for that before the House rises.

Mr. Tinker: If the right hon. Gentleman gets any information about the position in Germany, I suppose he will make it known to the House?

Mr. Eden: Yes, I think the hon. Member may be assured of that. If I have been specially cautious to-day, it was after consideration by the Cabinet last night and we thought that a cautious note was the right one to strike.

Mr. Denman: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make any reference to the German reply to our representations on the shot officers?

Mr. Eden: I should like to see that on the Paper.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, without Amendment.

Chesterfield and Bolsover Water Bill, with Amendments.

That they propose that the Joint Committee on Accommodation in the Palace of Westminster do meet in Room 352 on Tuesday next.

Ordered: That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Lords Committee as proposed by their Lordships.—[Mr. Drewe.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered:
That this day, notwithstanding anything in, Standing Order No. 14, Supplementary Estimates for New Services may be considered in Committee of Supply, and that Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before the hour appointed for the interruption of Business; and that if the first two proposed Resolutions shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before the hour at which the Chairman is directed, by paragraph 6 of Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith certain Questions, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith those Questions."—[Mr. Eden.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the Provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1944

CLASS V

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE

Resolved;
That a sum, not exceeding £22,710,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of unemployment insurance, employment exchange and other services; expenses of transfer and resettlement; expenses of training; contribution towards the expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); expenses of the Industrial Court; and sundry services."—[Note.—£14,500,000 has been voted on account.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1944, AND NAVY ESTIMATES, 1944

SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (DISPOSAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £83,981,473, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the charges for the following Departments connected with the Disposal of Surplus Government Property for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, namely:

Class VI., Vote 1, Board of Trade
£1,448,833


Class X., Vote 12, Ministry of Supply
£90


Class VII., Vote 4, Ministry of Works
£4,162,270


Class X., Vote 16, Ministry of Works (War Services)
£90


Class X, Vote 2, Ministry of Aircraft Production
£90


Revenue Departments, Vote 3, Post Office
£78,370,000


Navy Estmates, Vote 12, Admiralty Office
£100



£83,981,473

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): I am glad to have the opportunity to-day of making a statement for the information of the Committee, and with a view to the expression of opinion in the Committee on Government policy with regard to disposal of surplus Government stores. I begin by recalling to the memory of the Committee the answer which I gave on 2nd November last to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). I said:
There must be, after the war, an orderly disposal of surplus goods, which, on the one hand, will not allow profiteering at the expense of the consumer, and on the other hand, will pay due regard to the interests of producers and distributors. The Government have decided that disposal shall be carried out, in each particular case, through the agency of the Department mainly concerned with the supply of the goods during the war. Before working out the plans for disposal, the Board of Trade, together with other responsible Departments, will consult with representatives of the producers and distributors concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1943; Vol. 393, c. 502.]
Last week, following a considerable amount of work which has been done on this question, I presented a White Paper to the House entitled "Government Surplus Stores. Plans for Disposal." I should like to say something about that Paper and to add something, beyond what is contained in it, on the subject

of Government factories. In dealing with all these post-war problems we should look to see what was done at the end of the last war, examine the mistakes which were then made, if mistakes were made, and then consider how we can improve this time on that performance. That, I suggest, is the right approach to all these problems in which we have precedents in the last post-war arrangements. With regard to disposal, I do not think it will be claimed that the performance of the Government at that time was one of the most striking Government triumphs of that period. I propose to indicate, in order to lead up to what is proposed to be done now, what mistakes, looking back on those days, were made and what we should seek this time to avoid.
In the first place, there was no effective control at the end of the last war over the prices at which dealers were allowed to sell surplus stocks, nor over the margins of profit which could be charged. There was nothing to prevent the most grave profiteering, and cases occurred in which dealers acquired valuable property for knock-out prices and resold them at very large profits. Sometimes very large profits were made by people who never physically handled the goods at all. There were some very wicked cases of profiteering. That was one mistake. The second mistake was that there was no check imposed at the end of the last war on the number of intermediaries who might intervene and deal with the goods in their passage from the hands of the Government to the final consumer or user. In the third place, the Government were willing to sell to any person, whether or not a regular trader in the goods concerned, and in many cases speculators muscled in and secured large and quick profits which served no public interest whatever. In the fourth place, little or no regard was paid last time to the interests of producers, with the result that in many cases the market was flooded with goods, prices were depressed, and immediate advantage seemed sometimes to accrue to consumers, but only at the cost of seriously disturbing and checking production and causing serious unemployment in many of the industries concerned.
Those are the mistakes that were committed at that time, and the plans I am submitting for the consideration of the


Committee to-day are designed to avoid, and I hope will succeed, in avoiding them on this occasion. At the end of the last war the conditions were different in important respects from what they will be at the end of this war. There was at the end of the last war little or no machinery for an effective price control or control over margins, and the Government, therefore, at that time had not any effective system to prevent profiteering. I must warn the Committee that, if we did not possess to-day the powers which we do possess for price control, we should be in exactly the same position and equally at the mercy of the profiteer. Fortunately, however, we now have, and we have been using, powers strong enough to prevent that. In the second place, at the end of the last war the relations between the Government, on the one hand, and trade and industry, on the other, were much less close than they are today. There was much less intercourse and co-operation during the last war between Government Departments and representatives of trade and industry. That again makes it easier on this occasion to come to mutually satisfactory arrangements. In the third place, at the end of the last war there was a reckless drive for the removal of all controls at the earliest possible moment, regardless of consequences. Decontrol for its own sake was widely believed in at that time, and the consequences in some of the fields of which I am speaking were very bad indeed. Furthermore, at the end of the last war, the Government of that day had not accepted official responsibility for the maintenance of the highest possible level of employment.
To-day, the background is different and is much more favourable for a rational handling of this problem in harmony with the public interest. We have widespread powers of control over prices and price margins, particularly for consumer goods. Further, there has been growing up a habit of regular consultations between the Government and trade and industry, as a result of which there is a much better mutual understanding on both sides of the point of view of the other. Finally, in the White Paper on employment policy it has been made abundantly clear that, in the view of the Government, many controls must continue during the transition period, whatever may happen beyond.

Further than that, the Government have accepted officially in the White Paper responsibility for the maintenance of employment. Against this background, this more hopeful and constructive background, we have been working out these proposals. I should like to pay a tribute to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who has done a great deal of work on this White Paper on disposals, and has taken part in many consultations. He deserves a large share of the credit, which I hope the Committee will give, for the policy indicated in the White Paper, and I am very much indebted to my right hon. and gallant Friend in this connection, as in many others.
The White Paper deals briefly with the disposal of raw materials. For the most part, it deals with the disposal of manufactured civilian goods. In a phrase which has caught the eye of the Press, the manufactured goods which will have to be dealt with consist of a great variety of articles ranging from typewriters to trucks and from rain-coats to road rollers. Where the Government already have machinery of their own in existence for buying and selling—and there is, of course, a great deal of Government buying and selling in the field of raw materials—the problem of disposal will be much simplified for any surplus which may be thrown up at the end of the war or, indeed, at the end of the European war. With regard to the materials which are traded in already by the Government through one of the controls, they will be disposed of in the ordinary way through the operation of the control, whether by sales or by allocation as now.
I must warn the Committee that, when hostilities come to an end, there will in some cases be very large stocks of certain raw materials, so far as we can foresee, and special plans will have to be made, on the lines I have indicated, to prevent any serious disturbance of markets or production plans or employment resulting from the existence of those very large stocks. We must be careful where those stocks go to; we must see that they are used to the general advantage, but not poured forth recklessly in such a way as to upset our production and employment arrangements. Many Government Departments will require quantities of these supplies and many local authorities will wish to secure some of them—I am speaking


now particularly of manufactured goods, and to some extent also of raw materials—and we shall make sure that their requirements will be properly met before any of these supplies are declared surplus and available for the general public. It would be a very uneconomical arrangement first to declare these stocks surplus and sell them off and for Government Departments or local authorities to have to purchase them subsequently.
It is impossible to discuss this problem of surpluses without having in mind the future state of liberated Europe after the Huns have done their worst upon those innocent territories, and there will be great scope for us to make a constructive and human and helpful contribution to the restoration of Europe through the proper use of these surplus goods. We must not, of course, simply think of unloading upon Europe what we do not want ourselves, because that would be a wrong approach to any consultation with the various Allied Governments concerned and with the authorities of U.N.R.R.A. as to how we can best meet their urgent requirements out of our supplies. That question will be gone into with those concerned as we go along. We have to balance our own needs at home, which will be very considerable, with the need of our Allies, who have suffered so much in the course of the war, to obtain relief at the earliest possible moment. The relief of liberated territories will be one of the main destinations of many of these surplus supplies.
In paragraph 9 of the White Paper it is explained, and I am sure the Committee will understand, that we cannot at this stage give with any degree of exactitude any useful estimates of the quantities of goods and materials which will be available at the end of hostilities. We have made certain provisional estimates, but they are very provisional, too provisional to be worth publishing at the present time, because the supplies available will go up and down in accordance with the developments of the war, the requirements of the Armies in the field and the rapidity of the liberation of occupied territories; but a close statistical study is being made, and the estimates are revised from time to time, and when the war comes to an end everything will be properly tabulated.

Sir Granville Gibson: On the question of the tabulation

of supplies, in the first two lines of paragraph 9 it states that the goods which will probably be surplus "have been" tabulated. It has been done already.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, it has been going on. Many estimates have already been made, but, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate, the quantities may vary from time to time. We cannot tell in advance what will be added to or subtracted from the totals already tabulated. It may be that more surpluses will pile up or that they may disappear if there is a necessity to use them for the purposes of the war; but we are going on with the work, and the Committee may be re-assured that when the moment comes we shall be ready with exact estimates.
In paragraph 10, I would ask the Committee to note, three important questions are dealt with: First, the question of the right rate of release of these supplies, so that they shall not be released either too fast or too slowly; in the second place, the right method of distribution to the public; and, in the third place, the adequate control of prices and profits. With regard to the first question, we have to balance, and balance carefully, the interests of consumers and producers. On the one hand we must not flood the market, whatever the temporary advantages to consumers, because that would be a great mistake in the long run from the point of view of securing stability in prices and production and employment. On the other hand we must not scrap, throw away or otherwise fail to make use of valuable materials which are national assets, which have been manufactured by the labour of our own people, and which would be of value to us or our Allies or to other people at the end of the war.
Having warned consumers that they must not expect unhealthily cheap prices from a flooding of the market, I must warn producers that they must not expect us to create any scheme for the scrapping or destruction of valuable goods, although at first sight that might appear to be to the producers' advantage. Although we must make our plans carefully, there will be no very serious problem, I think, in regard to most consumer goods, because there will be very great shortages in this country and Allied countries and other parts of the world, and I feel that most of the surpluses available will be


absorbed fairly readily without there being any danger to the stability of our price structure or on employment. Where surpluses are very large, we must link the rate of release of those surpluses with production plans for the future, and we shall discuss that point with the various industries concerned. It may be necessary in some cases to slow down the rate of release so that it becomes a question of years rather than of months before the total quantity is released to the public. Here, again, we must remember that last time the Disposals Board acted very precipitately. They got rid of everything as fast as they could, and that had some very disadvantageous results. It would be better to take longer in order to retain stability in production and employment.

Dr. Russell Thomas: May I ask one question? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not give to Europe what will be required here?

Mr. Dalton: I do not think that is the way to approach it.

Dr. Thomas: Why not?

Mr. Dalton: Because there are moral duties which we owe to those of our Allies who have had a much harder war than we have.

Dr. Thomas: Charity begins at home.

Mr. Dalton: No, charity does not begin at home, unless your home is large enough to contain all your friends. If my hon. Friend does not see that, I do not think it is worth my while to spend more time upon it. I think I have already said sufficient on that, and it seemed to satisfy the Committee.

Dr. Thomas: Part of the Committee.

Mr. Dalton: When I said that we should relate our home requirements to those of our Allies, I was suggesting to the Committee that in some cases we should need to spread the release of goods of which there were large surpluses over a term of years rather than a term of months in order to maintain stability. On the other hand, the Committee will agree that we must avoid the opposite danger of having large stocks overhanging the market for a considerable time, because that might have an equally depressing effect

upon future production and employment. Therefore, subject to the various considerations I have indicated, our aim must be to get these goods on to the market as soon as possible, and to get them out particularly while there is a great shortage which can be relieved by their distribution.
Passing to the second point mentioned in paragraph 10, the method of distribution, it is not our intention, save in cases where it may really be necessary, as it will be in some cases, to set up any special ad hoc machinery for the distribution of these goods. We want to distribute them as far as possible through the normal trade channels. Reverting to the experience of the last war, we want to prevent these goods from getting into the hands of jobbers and speculating traders not normally engaged in dealing in such goods. As far as we can, we want those who have traded in these goods in the past to be able to continue to do so and for outsiders not to be allowed to come in. We want to interpose as few people as possible between the Government and the final consumers of the goods.
In the third place we must keep a firm control—and I hope the Committee will give me support in this—over prices and profit margins. There will be a great danger of inflation during the transition period—a far greater danger of that than of mass unemployment. Later on the relative importance of these dangers may change, but in the immediate transition period inflation will be much the greatest danger we shall have to face, and therefore it is essential to keep a firm grip, as we can under the existing statutory powers, upon prices and profit margins.

Mr. Bowles: May I put one question upon a point which seems fundamental? Does this visualise the disposal by the Government of Government stocks through private traders who will be making profits for themselves?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, but what I am saying is that the profit must be controlled.

Mr. Bowles: It will be profit out of Government stocks.

Mr. Dalton: The alternative would be to set up new ad hoc distributing machinery. That we are not in favour of, because in our view it would mean a great waste of manpower and administration at this time. We cannot afford to


set up additional machinery to do work which can be done by existing machinery. We must have some sense of economy in these matters.

Sir George Schuster: May I ask my right hon. Friend to talk in future about fair remuneration for services and not about profits?

Mr. Dalton: No, I shall use the terms that are commonly understood: "Margins of profit" is a commonly understood expression. What I was saying, when my hon. Friend rathered widened the area of discussion, was that we must continue to have la firm control over prices and profit margins. If we do not, we shall get inflation, and I do not think the Committee, and certainly not my hon. Friend, would want to see that. At the same time, when goods are in very short supply, these surpluses will not be thrown open to what I may call an auction sale. Prices will be fixed and regulated, and there will be an equitable distribution of the goods subject to price control. It will be our purpose to keep the gap between the price received by the Government for the goods and the price paid by the ultimate consumer as narrow as possible subject to the requirements of an efficient distributing system.
Now may I direct attention for a few moments to paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the White Paper, in which we describe the next steps in connection with this scheme? Consultations will take place— in a number of cases consultations have already begun—or will be continued with the representatives of the various industries and trades concerned as to the best method of disposing of the articles in which they are interested. In addition to discussions which have been taking place, and will continue to take place, with particular sections of industry and trade, we have also had certain discussions with national bodies, and we shall continue to keep in touch with them. The Federation of British Industries and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress have both expressed approval of the general principles on which the Government propose to proceed. I am encouraged—I hope no hon, Member of this Committee will think I should be discouraged—by the knowledge that the national bodies representing both sides of industry think that this Government is

planning better than the Government of 1919.
In paragraphs 17 and 18 of the White Paper there is some indication regarding the administrative machinery that we propose to set up. In the light of the experience of last time, which was not a very fortunate experience, we have rejected the idea of having one single Disposals Board. We are going to require each Department of the Government to play its part in this scheme, and for each class of goods we shall make one Department—I will explain in a moment which Department—and one only responsible for collecting, tabulating and cataloguing the goods in the Government's hands. The Department chosen to do this, will be the Department which has had most to do with the buying of those goods during the war. Generally speaking, it will be the Ministry of Supply, but there will be some cases, as I have indicated, where other Departments will perform this function. For certain classes of goods the Ministry of Works or of Aircraft Production, or the Admiralty, or that great public enterprise the Post Office, will be the Department designated for this work.
On the other hand there are other functions to be performed in regard to disposal. There is the question of negotiating with trade and industry about the rate of release, the manner of distribution, the fixing of prices and profit margin. These are matters in which the Board of Trade has had the chief experience during the war and, generally, the Board of Trade will be charged with this duty in regard to most classes of goods for disposal. But here, again, there will be exceptions as indicated in the White Paper. There are some cases where Departments, other than the Board of Trade, with special experience, will deal with particular classes of goods. Internal combustion engines, for example, will be dealt with by the Ministry of Supply, builders' materials by the Ministry of Works, and navigational instruments by the Admiralty. That, again, I think, is common sense, but there will be two separate functions, the function of collecting, tabulating and cataloguing the goods and the function of arranging for release, distribution, and price control. We have an inter-departmental machinery which is working smoothly as between the Departments concerned, and this will be found, I think,


the most effective way of handling the problem.
May I say one further word about stores and stocks which will be found abroad? So far, I have spoken of the need for a regulated and orderly disposal of the United Kingdom Government stocks in this country, but, of course, if we limit ourselves to that, we may have some unfortunate reflexes through the, possibility of unregulated and disorderly disposal of stocks owned by other Governments, or of our own stocks and stores held abroad. That is a danger against which we must guard, otherwise all those troubles, the flooding of the market and so on, which I have been speaking about, may be brought about by the precipitate and disorderly release of supplies held abroad either by other Governments or by ourselves. We are in consultation with other Governments, including the Governments of the Dominions, on the subject and we shall try to get their action concerted with ours. We have no reason to doubt that they will follow the same line and have the same general view of the subject as we have.
I would like, at this stage, to pass to another matter not dealt with in the White Paper, namely, the question of Government factories. Here again, I would preface my remarks by returning to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Westhoughton on this subject on the 2nd November, 1943. I then said:
The Government have further decided that the Board of Trade, through its Factory and Storage Control, shall co-ordinate the disposal of all surplus Government factories. With a view to decisions being taken as to the best use to which these can be put in the national interest, the Control will compile lists of factories and of applicants for them. The Government recognise the importance of reaching such decisions before the end of the war in as many cases as possible, but much must depend on the course of events, including future programmes of war production.
And I added:
Special attention will be paid to the release of factories urgently needed for peacetime production, and to the possibility of converting into trading estates some of the premises no longer required for Government work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1943; Vol. 393, c. 502.]
Since then, we have been studying the matter closely within the framework of that declaration and the Government have recently been considering, in par-

ticular, two questions of principle regarding Government factories. The first is, are these to be disposed of to the highest bidder or, in the alternative, should they be allocated by the Government according to broader social and economic criteria? The second is should these factories normally be sold or should they normally be leased to the particular applicants? [Interruption.] These are the questions and, if my hon. Friend will wait, I will answer them. I am now in a position to give the answers. The Government have decided that competitive bidding would not give the best results. An auction sale here would not be more serviceable to the public interest than with other goods in short supply. During the next few years there will undoubtedly be a shortage of good, modern factory premises and, unless suitable control is exercised, competition might cause artificially high prices and result in factory space being used for less essential production. We should regard the control and location of Government factories as being one aspect of the general policy laid down in the White Paper on employment of meeting our more urgent home and export demands in front of less urgent and less essential requirements.
Therefore, in the location of factories, the Government will take account of the following considerations: First, the establishment of a balanced distribution of industry in the particular area where the factory is situated, and of the contribution which the factory can make to local employment in the area. Secondly, the need to expand our export trade. Thirdly, the need to maintain a suitable war potential in the years of peace. Fourthly, to the requirements of town and country planning, and fifthly, to the ability of the various applicants for factory premises to make efficient use of such premises with the minimum of reconstruction. We do not want to have a factory pulled inside out if, in fact, someone can get on with useful work in that factory with less reconstruction. Therefore, it is the intention of the Government to have the allocation of factories after the war settled in accordance with those criteria, which I have indicated, and not in accordance with competitive bidding by the various applicants.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the present occupiers of fac-


tories be encouraged to prepare blueprints now, with a view to using the factories themselves after the war, rather than that they should be transferred to other owners? I understand that in America much has been done in that direction.

Sir Irving Albery: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, will he say whether the ability of the proposed technical user to contribute to expansion of trade and employment will be taken into account?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly. What I said was that we are going to take account of the contribution which can be made by any factory in the hands of a particular person to a balanced distribution of industry, to local employment, to the expansion of the export trades, and so on. Obviously, we should assess the ability of the applicant in the light of these considerations. My right hon. Friend asked whether existing users would be encouraged to go on. There will be some cases in which it will be useful that they shall, but in others not. In the procedure laid down existing users will be among those who can apply to continue to use the factories, and they will be considered along with other applicants, and the Government will reach a decision on the lines I have indicated as to who can make the best use of the premises.

Sir P. Harris: If existing users knew that they were likely to be allowed to continue in occupation, they could prepare blue prints for peace-time purposes, and so be able to get on without any break.

Mr. Dalton: We will bear that in mind, but we cannot lay down a rule that they are to have a higher degree of preference over other people who might, for peacetime purposes, be able to make better use of the factories.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the Government will have the responsibility of deciding what the factories are to be used for, will any consideration be given to the Government themselves controlling and running the factories.

Mr. Tinker: Is there any thought in the mind of the Government that they might use the factories in the interests of the nation?

Mr. Dalton: I think a number of these questions can be answered if I am allowed to proceed. I have not finished what I want to say on the subject. I was saying that on the first question for consideration—what purposes these factories should be used for and who should use them—that we have rejected the principle of competitive bidding and that the Government will consider in each particular case what is the best use to which the factory can be put as between the various applicants. I said this, also, in reply to a supplementary question on the 2nd November, 1943, that the Government may, in some cases, continue to hold and use the factories. But I was going on to say that on the second point, as between the leasing and selling of factories, the Government have decided that we should not lay down any hard and fast rule to cover all cases, but that the normal procedure for the disposal of factories should be one of leasing and not of selling. Although there may be cases where outright sale, in appropriate instances, would be preferable, the normal procedure will be leasing for a suitable term rather than selling.
There are a number of reasons why this procedure is to be preferred. In the first place, it will take some time for the prices of factories to settle down to anything approaching a stable level. Further, many firms, including small firms, will prefer not to lock up their resources in the purchase of factories or to borrow from the banks in order to purchase. They will prefer—and indeed this is already our experience with many firms—and will be more interested in a lease for a suitable term than in outright purchase. Finally, and I commend this reason to hon. Members on the Benches opposite, there is much to be said for leaving over further consideration, perhaps in a new Parliament, the final disposal of this group of public assets.

Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dalton: I am glad to get my hon. Friend saying "Hear, hear." Therefore the Government's decision that the normal procedure should be leasing rather than selling, is supported by several arguments which will commend themselves, I hope, some to one section of the Committee and some to another. This total argumentative weight is very great.


I hope that I have succeeded in making clear to the Committee the general lines on which the Government propose to proceed in regard to the disposal of stores, and factories. I shall be grateful to the Committee for any suggestions that can be made in the Debate, as to how these principles can most effectively be carried out, so as to avoid, in the light of our very unfortunate experience at the end of the last war, any repetition on this occasion.

Mr. Ellis Smith: A great responsibility rests upon this Committee because, by inference, after the right hon. Gentleman's statement, we are to determine to-day the view of this Committee in regard to the large-scale expenditure of public money which has been carried through by the various Departments, whose Votes are on the Order Paper. In my view to-day's Debate should be linked up with the last Debate we had on the Board of Trade Vote and on the Government's White Paper on full employment. The White Paper that we are considering to-day should be read in conjunction with the 77th Report received from the Select Committee on National Expenditure. This Report correctly interprets what we are considering to-day—State-owned assets—and it is a thorough indictment of the policy contained in the White Paper now before us and the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I hope in the short time available to me to produce evidence to prove the statement which I have made.
During the past five years we have voted one blank cheque after another, and many of us have wondered whether we were doing right in allowing them to go through. There has been no objection worth talking about from any section of hon. Members. The main view, during the time that these blank cheques have been given to the Government, has been that we did not want to say or do anything that might be interpreted as impeding the successful prosecution of the war. On grounds of public security, we have been given little information. Let me make it clear that I am not complaining about that, but this Committee has a great responsibility in seeing that the millions of pounds' worth of State-owned assets are utilised in the most efficient manner. Much public money is at stake, and the people of the nation are entitled to know how their own property is to be

dealt with after the war. Let me remind the Committee that the war is being fought for the preservation of democracy and that it is time that we had some instalment of democracy in this country.
Apart from pre-war Government assets, equipment that can only be of use in war, and the scrap that will inevitably arise on the termination of hostilities, I estimate that at the end of the war this country will own, at the very least, £2,000,000,000 worth of assets. If we compare that figure with the figure of pre-war private investment, which was about £305,000,000, we are able to make a correct approach to the problem that we are considering. There are great potentialities in these State-owned assets, and a Government who were framing their policy upon a modern and a big outlook, would not approach the question as the White Paper approaches it. The White Paper in paragraph I does not deal with the disposal of fixed assets, such as buildings, factories or machine tools. I was very pleased that the President of the Board of Trade dealt with this question, and brought those matters into the discussion. Paragraph 2 of the White Paper says:
The Government-owned stores which are likely to be surplus to requirements may be divided into three classes.
Reading those two paragraphs together I see the danger signal. Also my hon. Friends will let it be known that they see it, and I hope that we shall make our own position quite clear on this question. The Deputy Prime Minister is present and I put it to him, and I hope the Government will reconsider this question in the light of to-day's Debate. The White Paper is entitled "Plans for Disposal", but it should not be so entitled, because no plan is proposed in it. There is no co-ordinated policy although, with the European situation changing rapidly, the question becomes one of urgency. To judge from the White Paper, the Government do not seem to look upon the question as urgent. I contend that we should have been presented to-day with a report containing a plan for an organised utilisation of State-owned assets. Those of us who have been trained and brought up in industry have had to work to plans and drawings, and we know the difference between that approach and the approach of some Members of the Government to these problems.


Had the White Paper been drawn up on that basis, it would have contained a specification upon which real plans could have been made. It could have formed the basis of several five-year plans, each based upon a development of State-owned assets in this country which would have become greater than ever, as soon as hostilities terminated.
After the war several Ministries will be abolished, but the Ministry of Production should be retained and it should be changed into a Ministry of Economic Development, charged with the general allocation and utilisation of Government assets. I believe that Governments of the future will have to approach economic problems and world affairs in a far bigger manner than they have done in the past. Had the war been prosecuted in the way in which most political parties approach the question now before the Committee, we should never have pulled through. What applies to the successful prosecution of the war applies equally to the new world that will have to face the post-war economic problems of the world. This country must be able to hold its own and represent the people; we are determined to do all we can to secure the right result. The Ministry of Production should be changed, in order that it can plan this country upon a basis of our economic needs. If this suggestion were accepted, we should have planned industrial development, using our industrial resources, and not disposing of them as is proposed in the White Paper. It would be a disposal of the national surplus in the interests of the nation and not in a way which will mean that pressure can be brought to bear behind the scenes. Paragraph 8 of the White Paper states:
Steps are being taken to co-ordinate the needs of Departments.
I welcome that statement; but later on we read that these Government Departments are to be responsible for the disposal of the stores. That is not good enough, even from the point of view of the present Government. There should be a central authority, an economic general staff, to see that Government assets are disposed of in the best interests of the nation. I would draw the attention of the Committee to what I consider to be some very fine work done by some hon. Members, which has not received the encouragement that it should have. I refer to the Committee which

meets from time to time to consider national expenditure. In the Report issued dealing with State-owned assets, this Committee states, in paragraph I:
The expenditure with which your Committee are dealing in this Report represents a substantial accumulation of State-owned property, the post-war use of which will inevitably be the subject of decisions that will have important financial implications. It follows therefore, that, if waste is to be prevented, the taking of such decisions must be preceeded by the assembly and classification of all necessary data concerning the assets involved.
In paragraph 2, the Committee goes on to say:
The decisions which, sooner or later will have to be taken concerning State-owned assets," etc.
My final reference is from paragraph 3, where it is stated:
Your Committee are satisfied that no central agency has as yet undertaken"—
"as yet," remember, in the fifth year of the war—
the comprehensive collection and coordination of records of State-owned assets. The absence of such central machinery is likely to hamper the taking of important decisions, and to cause confusion and waste.
In paragraph 10, there are some excellent suggestions, but I would like these to be carried to their logical conclusion. In the view of my hon. Friends, the war-time utility policy carried out by the Board of Trade has been a very fine piece of work. It has been responsible for the best value that the ordinary people have ever received in the history of this country. It has been a contribution to the stabilising of prices and the maintenance of economic stability and the prevention of inflation, but one would have thought that this would have been carried in this White Paper to its logical conclusion. Here is the basis for the continuation of this policy after the war. For example, last week, I listened to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no doubt that they were greatly concerned about the post-war housing position. Those of us who came back after the last war and who had our hopes dashed to the ground and were subjected to frustration and disappointment, can never forget that. We hope that these young people, who have served us well in this war, and have saved this country, are not to have a repetition of that kind of thing.


The housing problem will be a tremendous one. Here was an opportunity for the Government to carry this war utility problem into the post-war situation. Houses need not only roofs and walls, but fittings, built-in furniture, electric lighting and all that kind of thing. One would have thought that the Government would have planned, in a real way in this White Paper, and provided some machinery for utilising Government-owned assets in this way. I have felt deeply for a long while the position in this country between the two wars. The chain stores in this country made profits of anything between 20 and 40 per cent., while men who had developed themselves technically, in order to manufacture turbines, locomotives and all kinds of engineering products could get, on the capital sunk in those industries, a maximum return of say 6, 8 or 10 per cent. There is something fundamentally wrong here. One would have thought that the Government would have seen this, and that instead of leaving it to chain stores to be responsible for the disposal of all these kinds of fittings, they would have organised, in the same way for peace as for war, to provide these young men and women of ours with household utensils and electric fittings at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope the Government will consider that aspect of the question.
Let me quote again from the Select Committee's Report on assets. They give a category of the assets which are now owned by us but which, if we allow this to go to-day, will not be owned by us for long after the termination of hostilities. One is able to get some idea of State-owned assets—factories, camps, hospitals, hostels, general stores of all descriptions, electric current installations, railway sidings, canal wharves, tractors and agricultural machinery, ships and craft, dockyards, floating docks, jetties, launching ways, slipways, grain elevators, furniture and equipment of all kinds. I have read this Report very carefully and I am not doing justice to it on account of lack of time, but I hope other hon. Members will quote from it. I shall cut out a fair amount of what I was going to quote and content myself with this quotation:
Your Committee were surprised to find in the fifth year of the war not only that

no central assembly of records has been undertaken, but that no instructions have been given to Departments in order to ensure that their inventories are kept in such a manner that they can be fitted into a common scheme. If at the end of the war waste and confusion are to be avoided, your Committee consider that immediate attention should be given to this subject.
I wholeheartedly agree with that conclusion, and anyone who knows anything about the matter at all must do the same.
It is elementary business to keep records and inventories in business. Large-scale modern management realises it is a good business proposition to incur overhead charges in order to keep records and inventories. We have a national Budget each year and we are now provided with what I consider a very fine annual Financial White Paper. We are able to see at a glance our economic position each year. If that is right it is right that we should have a national inventory made of State-owned assets in order that people may know where we stand, I put a Question on that subject on 29th June, this year, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is the relevant passage in the Chancellor's reply.
I do not think that a central inventory of State-owned assets would be either practicable or useful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1944; V. 401, c. 790].
I leave it to the Committee to come to their own conclusion.
Government-owned assets should not be disposed of in the way proposed in the White Paper, which, in my view, is a "jumble sale" approach to this question. In my view these Government-owned assets should be used for providing a basis for expansion at home and abroad. The Committee to which I refer gave a long category of State-owned assets which I have not time to mention apart from a few. There are cars, "jeeps," lorries—and those of us who have visited the Army Equipment Exhibition have seen all the very fine work that is going on—mobile workshops, mobile dentists, mobile first-aid and mobile lighting sets. I never forgot the 1936 Economic Report on the state of our Colonies, in which I read about the terrible conditions that existed in the West Indies. The same applies to many parts of Africa and many other parts of the Dominions. These places need developing. Here is an opportunity. There are cars, agricultural implements of all kinds, mobile workshops, and other


equipment. The West Indians and the Africans could be providing us with the fruit, food and materials we need. Here we see a basis of real economic co-operation within the Colonies and the Commonwealth, but there is not one word in this White Paper in regard to that.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I do not know if the hon. Member is unaware that last week this question was raised, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies distinctly said he would have the "first whack," out of the surplus available, before it came up for disposal.

Mr. Dalton: I did not interrupt my hon. Friend as I wished to give him an opportunity of developing his argument, but I endeavoured to make clear that any Government Department here or any public authority here would be entitled to have its requirements of any of these supplies met, before any surplus was declared. All the things he has in mind can be perfectly well done under that provision.

Mr. Smith: I heard that Debate and took careful note of it. My hon. Friends and myself were not satisfied with the reply that was given. As a matter of fact our interpretation of what was said, was that up to that time, there had been no consultations with regard to it, and that while it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that that should take place, little or no consultation had taken place. With regard to what my right hon. Friend has said, it is quite true, but it ought to be in this White Paper. We ought to have a real plan for this purpose. That is my complaint. [Interruption.] While there is reference in the White Paper, it is only a slight reference when one considers the big problem with which we are faced.
These State-owned assets should be distributed as loans to the Dominions and Colonies, to India and China, and other countries that require them. In that way we could start at once the flow of goods and build up the means of payment for our imports, and lay the basis for real economic co-operation. This would be a contribution to a high and stable level of employment. I want to put a question to my right hon. Friend. Has the Colonial Secretary been consulted with regard to this White Paper?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, of course.

Mr. Smith: And the Dominions Secretary?

Mr. Dalton: of course.

Mr. Smith: And the Secretary of State for India? Were they consulted before this White Paper has been issued?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend may take it that a White Paper of this kind is not put forth until all Ministers of Cabinet rank have had an opportunity of seeing it and commenting upon it, and it has become a document of Cabinet status. They have all been consulted.

Mr. Smith: Then we can take it the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary of State for India have been consulted on this White Paper?
I have a letter here, dated 3rd July, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). This is an extract from it:
You are, of course, aware of the two Admiralty camps, one in Caernarvonshire and one at Ayr, one of which has been discussed in the House, where the Admiralty have undertaken to sell them to Messrs. Butlins when no longer required. There is one War Office case on the same lines at Filey, Yorkshire, which was agreed at about the same time as the Admiralty cases.
I want to ask some questions on which I should like specific answers to-day. Who arranged this sale? Were other holiday organisations given an opportunity to purchase? What are the terms of the disposal? Have they been published? Who took part in the negotiations? Is it a fact that there are mountains of ore near Sierra Leone? Who is responsible for the large capital expenditure that has taken place there? Is it public money that has been sunk there, and if so, what is to become of it after the war?
I think this country will became deeply involved in controversy over this question, unless it is handled differently from the way it is being handled at the present time. After the last war there was, in America, a large nitrate works, one of the largest in the world. Several big concerns desired to take it over after the war. There was a big public outcry against the proposal because the American public did not agree with it. The result was that the Government had to abandon their


scheme to dispose of this nitrate works. In 1933, President Roosevelt—I ought to say, courageous President Roosevelt, not only because of his record in this war but for what he did on that occasion, and I can never forget meeting big business men in this country and seeing their attitude towards what President Roosevelt did at that period—proved he had courage and vision. President Roosevelt suggested that this nitrate works should form the centre of large scale development, and as a result we got the beginnings of the development of the Tennessee Valley Scheme. This is a great example of democratic planning, and the utilisation of State assets in the national interest. It was real democratic planning, and was bound to raise the best emotions in people who have any regard to this kind of thing. Mr. John Winant wrote a preface to a book in which he said:
Vested interests in the United States fought it with a bitterness that has seldom been equalled in any controversy.
What I am asking my right hon. Friend is to see that we do not have a repetition of that kind of thing in this country. Today we are considering how best to utilise the State-owned assets that have been developed because we have been fighting in the world battle for the retention of freedom. We have been fighting to retain democracy, and, in our view, the State-owned assets should be used for the purpose of building a greater democracy than ever man has dreamed of in the past.

Sir Harold Webbe: I do not wish to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) in the rather wider matters which he has opened, both in regard to the disposal of real property and in regard to the continuance after the war of trade controls, utility schemes, and so on. My excuse for intervening in this Debate is that I was, at the end of the last war, as a civil servant, very intimately concerned with those distressing experiences of the Disposal Board, to which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made reference in his speech. I think that he painted a rather gloomy picture of the work of the Disposal Board and I would express the hope that he may find that the scheme which he is now launching will, in the ultimate event, be free from any of those unfortunate experiences and those causes of criticism

which naturally followed the work of the Disposal Board at the end of the last war. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke was just a little unfair to the President of the Board of Trade in demanding precision, figures, detailed plans, and detailed proposals at this stage of the war. It seems to me that my right hon. Friend was perfectly justified in saying that the position in regard to surplus stocks—and that is what the White Paper is concerned with in the main—is so fluid and so rapidly changing that it is quite impossible at this stage to bring forward precise and definite proposals, based on known facts. But I admit that I have some misgiving, arising not only from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke but from the White Paper and from the speech of my right hon. Friend himself.
As to the principles which have been laid down to govern this very big and important business of disposing of surplus Government materials and stocks at the end of the war, there can, I think, be no argument. The principle that, in the first place, the responsibility for initiating the disposal must lie with the Department which has been primarily concerned with the acquisition of the goods is not new. The old Disposal Board was, in fact, the child of the Ministry of Munitions, was responsible to the Minister of Munitions, and was very largely staffed by officers of the Ministry of Munitions, who had been responsible during the war for the purchase of the stores. The principle that the distribution of the goods should be made through normal trade channels is one which on this side, at any rate, we welcome, and regard as businesslike, sensible, and practical. That there should be some regulation of prices, in order to prevent the exploitation of the consumer, is clearly desirable, and we are, as my right hon. Friend has said, in possession of machinery which can be used to that end. The position that the flow of disposal should be so regulated as to avoid flooding the markets, again, is commonsense and unexceptionable.
My misgiving arises from this consideration. As it seems to me, the success of this vast enterprise must depend very largely on how these principles are in fact carried out and on where the control and regulation by Government Departments stop and the normal channels of distribution are given a free hand to


get on with the job. If we are to judge from some of the questions put to my right hon. Friend and from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke, they will be a very distinct cleavage of opinion. There seems to be on the other side of the Committee a strong feeling that this job should be done almost throughout by State agency. I am entirely in agreement with my right hon. Friend that that policy would be fatal, would be expensive, would be disastrous to industry, and would, in fact, lead to a position of complete chaos and virtual stagnation in the business of disposal. But even in the White Paper and in the speech of my right hon. Friend I detected a tendency to retain State control further than I believe it should be retained, and to make it too detailed and more comprehensive.
The theory that the Department which has purchased goods is the best Department to dispose of them is that kind of dangerous half-truth against which we must beware. Purchasing and sale are not the same business. The personnel of purchasing Departments has to be different in character, with an entirely different outlook, from the personnel of a selling Department. Their contacts are different. Those officers of the Ministry of Supply who have been engaged in purchasing goods have been concerned to contact all the manufacturers and producers of those goods, and it may well be that they lack contacts with the consumers or with those who can distribute to consumers. Therefore, at the earliest stage, there must be close consultation between those officers and manufacturers, merchants, and others, so that they may find the right channels of distribution. Then there is a suggestion that the Ministry of Supply shall be responsible for reconditioning second-hand goods. I am not querying that, but reconditioning is only a small part of the problem. A very much greater part of the problem is that of remaking or modifying goods which are not suitable for ordinary civilian use, in order that they may be made so suitable. In fact, throughout the speech of my right hon. Friend, and in the White Paper, the problem, I feel, was envisaged rather too narrowly, and was concerned with the disposal of those goods, picturesquely referred to as "embracing everything from raincoats to road rollers," which have a normal civilian

use, and can be disposed of through the ordinary channels.
So far as those goods go, all the controls and so on which my right hon. Friend envisaged can be made to work without any serious detriment; but the fact is—and I am quite certain that experience after this war will be similar to experience after the last war—the vast majority of the surplus stocks which the Government will have to get rid of will be goods which are not normally used by civilians, and which have no direct civilian use at all. That will be the great problem. Even where the goods are ordinary civilian products, the stock which will be left in the hands of the Government will be completely unbalanced. I do not know if my right hon. Friend ever visited any of the great engineering supply depots in France at the end of the last war. I spent a great deal of time at Audricq. There one realised what a hopelessly unbalanced and frightfully wasteful business war is. It is only when you come to clean up the mess that you realise that. I remember seeing at Audricq a pile of jim crows. Jim crows, I think everyone knows, are devices for straightening rails. There was a pile sufficient to equip the whole of the railways of Europe, and to leave a big balance over. To talk of disposing of these through the ordinary trade channels is just nonsense. There was only one thing to do, and that was to scrap them. There were mountains of contractors' barrows. There were rows and rows of gantry cranes. Things that you normally buy one at a time were there not in dozens, but in hundreds. It is that completely unbalanced nature that makes the problem of the disposal of surplus something quite different from the ordinary commercial problem of getting rid of a reasonable balanced stock.
There will be, undoubtedly, very large quantities of material which will be of uncommercial sizes and uncommercial types. One actual case, which was one of the jobs I personally had to do after the last war, was the disposal of a stock of high-speed steel. The stock of highspeed steel was not only large, but for the major part it consisted of sizes and types which are never used in ordinary industrial practice. There was only one thing to do, and that was to scrap it, and hope that the inclusion of it in the ordi-


nary melt would not actually damage the melt, instead of improving it.

Mr. Bowles: Does not that prove that the ordinary channels of distribution are not very good for these things, and that, therefore, the Government might use them themselves for national development schemes?

Sir H. Webbe: I am coming to that; but, when one speaks of using for national development schemes things of a character which no one has ever used, or could use, in ordinary civilian work, one is, if I may say so, talking just nonsense. The only possibility is to get a great many of these things back into the scrap pot, and to start again. There is another group of goods for which there is no user along the line for which they were originally intended, but for which some alternative use could be found. There was at Zeneghem in Flanders a great dump many square miles in area, covered with signal stores, including many thousands of miles of signal wire. You could not sell that amount of signal wire, but it was bought by a group of scrap dealers, under a profit sharing arrangement, and they farmed out this stuff and found alternative uses for it. If we are going to have these precise attempts to fit everything into its proper pigeon-hole, and to use everything for its right purpose, none of us will ever see the end of the job. Only three months before the present war began I bought, for tying up fruit trees, some signal wire which undoubtedly came from that dump. For many of these things it is quite impossible to follow ordinary methods of disposal. It is quite impossible also to apply ordinary methods of control.
My right hon. Friend was at great pains to make dear that the Government are going to see that no one makes speculative profits and that everything, including the margins, is controlled. I remember attempts of that kind in the disposal of stocks before. I remember one contract made in France for the sale of some thousands of tons of screw pickets—the screw standard to which they fastened the wire on the front of the trench. It was a perfect contract, from the Government point of view; everything was completely tied up. There was only one little clause

in the contract, which appeared perfectly reasonable, but which gave the French purchaser the right, if the material did not come up to the tonnage prescribed in the contract, to take other materials at his choice. At the point at which I first met that contract, there was a deficiency of some 2,000 tons in the quantity which had been sold, and the Frenchman was being persuaded, or, rather, was kindly consenting, to accept an equivalent tonnage in machine tools at £6 a ton. That was a very expensive contract for the Government, and it cost them quite a lot of money to get out of it.
There was another case which I met in this country, in connection with another type of store, where every precaution was taken, the margins were prescribed to a decimal point and the exact method and rate of disposal were laid down. It was a contract such as we are very familiar with in war time—the sort of "heads I win, tails you lose" contract. No one but a complete fool could afford to sign the contract, and the man who did sign it was a fool. After a brief struggle, during which he tried to keep above water, he went bankrupt, and the Government were left holding a very expensive baby and with no possible redress. I suggest that, if the Government are going to make contracts which completely tie up a person, they will find in the end that the man who signed the contract is either a knave or a fool, and, either way, the Government would suffer.

Mr. Gallacher: So are all business men, knaves or fools.

Sir H. Webbe: Interjections of that kind leave me quite unmoved. There is no one in this Committee, on either side, who is prepared to work for nothing. If you ask people to take speculative risks, you are bound to give some opportunity for speculative profit, and to leave it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that not too much benefit goes to the private individual.
That brings me to my last point, which is dealt with in a short paragraph in the White Paper—the disposal of munitions of war. The position at the end of this war is likely to be, I imagine, not very different from that at the end of the last war. On the one hand, our stocks may well be very much greater because of the greater size of our Armed Forces. On the


other hand, some of us hope that, at the end of this war, we shall not permit the mistakes we made last time and denude ourselves of all our weapons until, at any rate, we are certain that there is no possibility of a repetition. There may be compulsory national service, and the stocks we should have to retain would, necessarily, be very large. I am going to put in a personal plea for a small item of stock to be kept by the Government—small arms and small arms ammunition—to be placed at the disposal of people like the National Rifle Association. This country was once a nation of bowmen, and I think there is no reason why it should not be a nation of riflemen. If you could have all your recruits trained shots, you would have very much better material to work upon. There will be, in any case, vast quantities of ammunition and warlike stores surplus to our requirements.
I wish earnestly to plead that, when the time comes to break this ammunition down, the Government will not repeat the mistake made after the last war, of saying that the Government factories which filled the ammunition are the right people to break it down. On that matter, I can speak with personal experience. I saw, week by week, the cost returns from the Government factories breaking down ammunition. In practically every case, the value of the recovered scrap was not more than the cost of recovery, and, in a very large number of cases, it was substantially less. Yet, there were private enterprise firms ready to buy this material from the Government and to undertake the work of breaking it down themselves. In fact, the Government reversed their policy, and actually sold by far the larger part of this filled ammunition to be broken down by private enterprise. That was done far more quickly and at a better bargain for the Government. Whatever arguments may be addressed to the Minister in favour of retaining State factories, I hope that, in the case of breaking down ammunition, he will look at the result of what happened after the last war and will think again.
This is an extremely difficult job. It is complicated almost beyond belief. I accept the position of my right hon. Friend that one cannot, at this stage, make precise and detailed forecasts. But I do hope that in considering the further details of this plan, he will realise that the close control of the distributive agencies

in industry and commerce, which you could apply with some reasonable hope of success to goods normally suitable for civilian use, cannot be applied over the field of a vast volume of goods which have no civilian use, and have to be adapted and made suitable for other purposes. Finally, one word in regard to scrap materials. There is, I am certain only one way to deal with scrap materials and that is to get the people experienced in handling them to sort them out, grade them and dispose of them. They alone know how to do it, and if you try to do it in Government factories you will be in for trouble. I can only wish my right hon. Friend good fortune in carrying out his plans.

Sir Granville Gibson: I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), and particularly in one remark in connection with a scheme carried out in Tennessee, which my hon. Friend said was a case of democratic planning in the national interest. I have read this White Paper through time after time, and I have tried my very best to find some points on which I could be critical of the Minister. A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend at that Box defended the White Paper on the location of industry, on which I had some remarks to make, but on which occasion I was not fortunate enough to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker. But, try as I would, I could find no criticism in respect of this White Paper, and I can imagine no scheme more democratic than this.
The Minister said that, in the last war, there was no control of selling prices or any limitation of profits. There was no check on the number of intermediaries. The Government were willing to sell to any person who came along, and there was no machinery for controlling margins, but there was a definite urge for the abolition of control. That was perfectly true and I think it right that he should point it out to us, and also the necessity of going on the right lines in future. The mistakes to which my right hon. Friend has referred played a great part in the depression in this country in the years between 1921 and 1925 by flooding the market with high-priced goods, in many cases in 1919, when the market was a boom market. Because of the stoppage in the purchase of new materials, due to


the market being filled through the unloading of immense quantities of disposal stocks, a depression started, because manufacturers of consumer goods had no trade to carry them over that period. The result was enormous unemployment throughout the country between 1921 and 1925, and I am very grateful to the Minister for having pointed out that very important point.
The Minister also dealt with a matter on which, it is stated in the White Paper, there will be a separate announcement later—that is, land, buildings and factories. The point is, therefore, really outside the White Paper, but it is one of very great interest and will be of great interest to industrialists all over the country. The Minister stated that there was to be no competitive bidding, under his new scheme, for buildings, and no hard and fast rule as to leasing or selling, but that, generally, buildings will be on lease. That may be wise to a certain extent, but we must never lose sight of this fact—that the man who owns a house is always prepared to put far more into it than the man who rents one, and it will be the same with these national factories. While, in many cases, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, it would be to the great advantage of some employers to lease these buildings, because of the fact that their financial strength may be limited, eventually it will be for the good of the buildings themselves that they should be owned by those firms. When they became the owners they would be prepared to put more into the buildings and expend more money on them in order to make them produce more economically, whereas they might hesitate to do that if they were only renting them: [An HON. MEMBER: "On long lease?"] It is rather problematical. What does one mean by a long lease—99 or 21 years?

Mr. Bowles: Long enough to take an interest in them anyhow.

Sir G. Gibson: There is the possibility, but I cannot myself imagine any industrialist renting a building, who would be prepared to make the same financial outlay in respect of such building as he would if it were his own building. Therefore, I notice that land, buildings and factories and machine tools are not dealt with in

the White Paper. I was very glad the President of the Board of Trade raised the matter.
The Committee have to consider mainly consumption goods, that is, raw materials and manufactured goods. The kingpin of the whole scheme is the disposal of these various goods which will be within the control of the Government without dislocation of industry and a consequent loss of employment to wage-earners of the country. One of the first things set out in the White Paper—and it is very important—is that goods should be sold at economic prices. I remember that at the end of the last war there was a man in the West Riding of Yorkshire—he was known to me personally—who wanted to buy a Lancashire boiler for his works. A shell-filling factory was being dismantled and he bought a boiler and gave £800 for it. A little later apparently the Government had to vacate the land on which the shell-filling factory stood and it had to be pulled down, and another man bought the sister-boiler and all fittings for £80. One might say that that was a very good purchase on the part of the second man, but we have to take the long view, and realise that the selling at an uneconomic price in that way would be harmful to the boiler industry.
Therefore, it is very important that the Government should not "slaughter" these goods but should obtain reasonable, fair and economic prices for them where possible. Selling at too low prices break markets and eventually is contributory towards causing depression in industry. An economic level of prices should be aimed at. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade there must be no speculative profit by intermediaries. I am speaking as an industrialist. It would not be for the national good that we should have a repetition of what took place after the last war. I was one who went through the period of boom, but I also realise what, unfortunately, followed—a terrible slump. No industrialist wants that kind of thing to interfere with trade. I can see by the White Paper that it is the intention of the Government to try and dispose of the goods so that it will not disturb the normal run of trade and industry throughout the country. As the Minister said, there must be the maintenance of the stability of the price structure. Raw materials such as wool, cotton,


and hides should still continue to be sold for a considerable time through the Government controls.
I once more wish to pay tribute to the Controls, who have done a magnificent job of work during the war in keeping prices steady. It has been to the advantage of the industrialists and of the employees. There was no control such as we are likely to have after this war on primary commodities operating after the last war. One of my competitors in a different section of the industry from that with which I was connected, on that occasion told me that he was purchasing goatskins from India at 190/- a dozen, and at the moment when he had these goods coming into the country from India he was buying them here at 38/- each. We have to bear in mind the effect upon employment in the country of such a state of affairs. Enormous increases of prices of different commodities have been prevented by our Controls during the war, and I wish to pay them the highest compliment I can for the admirable work they have done. Paragraph 17 of the White Paper states that Departments have been designated as disposal departments, such as the Ministry of Supply. The London Chamber of Commerce some time ago issued a little brochure on the disposal of Government stocks, and in it they suggested that the Government disposal department should form disposal companies, in respect of each class of commodity, composed of one producer representing manufacturing interests, one person representing wholesale distributors, one person representing export merchants, a Government nominee, and a representative of the trades unions, and that each small company, comprised of these fixed men, should be responsible for the disposal of the goods in its own particular industry. I do not know how such a suggestion would appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, but I notice on page 5 (17b) of the White Paper the statement:
One Department will be primarily responsible for deciding the method of disposal, for fixing margins and prices, for settling the rate at which goods will be released, and for conducting the necessary discussions with trade and industry.
In his reply I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to make more clear exactly what is meant by these negotiations and discussions with trade and industry, because the next paragraph states:

Traders or manufacturers who wish to know which Department they should approach regarding the disposal of particular surplus stores should get into touch with the Board of Trade.
It is not particularly clear in the White Paper as to how there will be a real liaison arranged as between the Government Department disposing of certain articles and the trade and industry which is interested in those particular articles.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 are the crux of the whole of the White Paper. Personally, I approve of them because I feel that they represent very sound policy indeed. But the important thing to remember is to sell at fair prices without breaking the market, and only to allow agreed maximum profits to buyers. That may seem strange as coming from an industrialist, who during the war has been protesting all the time about an E.P.T. within an E.P.T. by certain Departments, limiting one's profits to four per cent. on turnover or 7½ per cent. on capital. In the disposal of these goods, I hope there will not be a repetition of what occurred in the last war, of men making inordinate profits. This was illustrated when the President of the Board of Trade referred to tyres being sold for a few shillings each, and later on re-sold at £5 or £6 each. That kind of thing should be prevented in future. Goods should be released slowly. Enormous volumes of goods were released in 1920 at high prices and resulted in hundreds of people going bankrupt in 1921 when depression came.
In the last war prices rose enormously, and when the slump came firms went down like ninepins. I remember one manufacturer in the West Riding of Yorkshire who had £1,000,000 offered for his business, which had a capital of £100,000. The slump came in 1920, and in that year he lost £400,000, and the year following £200,000, and he was struggling to keep his head above water until the day he died. That was not good for him financially, and not good for the people working. for him.
This is the important point I want to stress in this Committee. Let the Government keep prices steady and there can be no great drop in prices. I have indicated, in my own industry, how the prices have been kept steady throughout the war. The prices of primary commodities to-day are very little higher than they were in pre-war days, with the re-


sult that, whatever may happen in future, they cannot fall very much and cause distress to either employers or employed. The Government should organise commodity disposal companies for industries and groups of industries immediately. They ought not to wait but tackle the job at once. In respect of heavy electrical goods and light electrical goods, there should be disposal boards or companies or some body of people who would be responsible for placing these goods on the market, and these companies or committees should be set up at the earliest possible moment.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that millions of pounds of goods could be used in the Colonies and devastated countries. I endorse entirely his attitude of mind on this question, that we should do all we can to assist our Colonies in particular in the post-war period in order to put them on their feet at the earliest possible moment. There is no statement in the White Paper on how goods are to be disposed of which are abroad, and are the property of His Majesty's Government. I would like the right hon. Gentlemen to inform the Committee of the functions of the Government in this connection. Will the Government arrange with business houses which are abroad to undertake the task of distributing these goods in various parts of the world, or will an organisation such as U.K.C.C. have the opportunity or the task of distributing these goods?

Mr. Bowles: How will the Soviet Union do it?

Sir G. Gibson: They should be disposed of for the good of the people, wherever they are disposed of. If sales are made in our own Colonies, His Majesty's Government would, I expect—I hope they would—stipulate conditions of sale which would prevent large profits being realised above British Government prices. Sale by negotiation or tender might be satisfactory, subject to a limitation of profits on purchases. But I do not want to see a repetition of what took place after the last war. I have in mind a certain man. I did not blame him; it so happened that he took advantage of the situation. He was a very able and brainy man, and to-day he is a millionaire due entirely to the disposal of

Government stock after the last war. I do not want to see that happen in this case, because I realise that the pushing up of prices may have the result of shutting a large number of people eventually out of employment.

Mr. A. Edwards: Has that only been latterly discovered?

Sir G. Gibson: No, it was not at all latterly discovered. Since 1918 we have not had a job of this description brought before this House. I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that we must deal with the matter in the light of experience of what followed after the last war and try to correct those matters which were harmful and inimical to the public interest and dispose of these goods for the benefit of the people in the country. I have not the slightest doubt that industrialists all over the country will be only too glad to co-operate in forming, for their own protection in respect of their normal production prices, non-profit making organisations to assist in selling Government stock. Paragraph 15 refers to the reconditioning of some goods, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe) did not appear to me to be in favour of this policy being carried out, but personally I think it would be a wise policy.
In conclusion, I will give the Committee an example of what I mean. Two or three years ago I asked several questions in this House about certain people buying Army boots that were being rejected by the Services. At the time the Government had nearly 1,000,000 pairs on their hands and could not dispose of them. I was asked to investigate the question and eventually the Ministry of Supply tackled the matter very energetically, and to-day they are reconditioning over 85 per cent. as against 7 per cent. to 10 per cent. previously of all the boots rejected by the Services and they are doing a magnificent piece of work.
There is no reason why they should not continue to be reconditioned by boot manufacturers throughout the country, so long as supplies are available, because it is work for the boot manufacturers, and boots which are not suitable for re-issue to the Forces can be made available to the civilian population, such as farmers, mine-workers, etc., because they are


really excellent wearing boots when reconditioned. Therefore, I commend paragraph 15 of the White Paper, and I consider it very desirable that this reconditioning should be carried on in the public interest. I feel that the Government are tackling this problem of disposal in a businesslike manner, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that in this work the Board of Trade and the Government will have the wholehearted co-operation of the industrialists of this country.

Mr. Bowles: The speech of the hon. Member for Pudsey and Otley (Sir G. Gibson) discloses the real difference of opinion between Members of the Labour Party and Members who are supporters of the Conservative Party. He seemed quite surprised to find that an abundance of wealth is embarrassing not only to private industry but also to the people who are employed in it. We have known that for a long time. In the first place I would like to pay this compliment to the President of the Board of Trade. I think every hon. Member will agree that he has been a first-class President so far as the organisation of war and coupons and general rationing of commodities are concerned. I am sorry he is not here, because I should like to ask him what he thinks his authority is, or what mandate he conceives he has, to come before the Committee and present this White Paper on the disposal of surplus Government stocks after the war. Members of the Labour Party were authorised to enter the Government with the Conservatives and Liberals purely and simply for the prosecution of the war. Now we find, week after week, that they have associated themselves with one White Paper or another which is going to land them and their supporters and followers in very great difficulties, not only immediately but in the more distant future.
We had a Debate about three weeks ago on the Government's employment policy. So clear was the difference of opinion between hon. Members on that side and hon. Members on this side, particularly at the end, that the House was only prepared to support the first sentence of the foreword to that White Paper. I think it was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) who interrupted my right

hon. Friend the Minister of Production, when he was coming to the end of his speech, because the Minister of Production said that should the House clearly indicate that it gave its support to the White Paper, the Government would proceed to prepare plans of an administrative and legislative character. Not only on that side, but also on this side, I well remember hon. Members saying, "No, if we pass this first sentence of the foreword, the Government must not accept that as a mandate to go ahead with any further steps." I should like to say this, and I think I am entitled to say it on behalf of my friends, that if we allow the Government to have the Supply Vote today, we are not by any means committed to any contents of this White Paper. I deny the mandate of any Member of the Government, particularly the President of the Board of Trade, to commit his party to their policy so far as the post-war distribution of war stocks is concerned.
The President paid a very great compliment to his right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the hand he had in the preparation of this White Paper. He has obviously had a very great hand in it, and I compliment him on the unusual situation where a Parliamentary Secretary seems to be able to overlay the Minister himself. That makes it all the more serious from the point of view of this discussion. Why are Ministers in the Government, particularly Labour Ministers, allowing themselves to be put in this position where the natural threat of the Conservative make-up of the Coalition Government enables them to bring pressure to bear which is so obvious in each of these documents? We have had the Employment Policy Paper, and last week we were discussing the Town and Country Planning Bill, where everything the Labour Party stood for has gone by the board.
At the end of the war the Government will find themselves in possession of
something like £2,000,000,000 worth of surplus goods. Some of them may not be immediately useful for civilian consumption, some of them may. I interrupted the President when he said he was going to dispose of those through the normal channels of distribution, but that he was going to control the amount of profit made. Why should any profit be made by any person at all in the distribution of public property to the


public? That is the real issue. If the policy of the Government is to say, "Here we have 1,000,000 blankets we no longer need; we will hand them over to Selfridge's and other big firms or people concerned in the retail trade of blankets and allow them to make 5 or 7 or 10 per cent. profit in distributing them," that goes against the fundamental principle of those of us on this side of the Committee, because the making of profit is visualised. We believe in each according to his need. I am perfectly certain that when this war is over there will be a great need, particularly on the part of the poor people, for blankets I see no reason on earth why the men and women who have contributed so much during this war, who have financed the purchase of these blankets by the Ministry of Supply, or whichever Ministry it is, should have to go without. It is quite obvious that the gentlemen engaged in the blanket retail trade are only going to sell to people who have the money in their pockets to give a profit to the retail distributors.
I see no reason why the poorest people in this country—and because they are poor, their needs are the greatest—should come second in this distribution of surplus Government wealth, when it is quite obvious that if the scheme visualised in the White Paper is carried out, the surplus goods will go into the possession of those who can not only pay for them, but pay a profit on top of the price at which the Government are prepared to let them go. I say quite seriously, and I am sure I can speak for every Member of my party, that we accept nothing of the principle outlined in the White Paper so far as the disposal of Government surplus stocks is concerned.
There are many things, furniture, for instance. It might easily be argued that the easiest way of distributing these things is through the normal trade channels, but it is not unknown to hon. Members who sit for London that the London County Council not only built a large number of flats but also furnished them with L.C.C. furniture. If the present Government dissolve we shall have, I hope, a decent housing policy after the war. [An HON. MEMBER: "They may not dissolve."] I think they are going to dissolve. So far as the present Government are concerned, however, so far even

as the present Minister of Health is concerned, we shall have 300,000 houses in the first two years after the war——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): This speech has gone rather wide, but I think that the building of houses is a little too wide.

Mr. Bowles: With great respect, Mr. Williams, if you will be good enough to look at the White Paper you will see that furniture and fittings are mentioned and were also mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member may mention fittings but cannot go into the building policy. I think I am definitely correct, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Bowles: I am not doing that at all, Mr. Williams. What I am saying is that a certain number of houses will be built which will need fittings and fixtures. My hon. Friend below me pointed to the various fittings in the ceiling here which will be found in other houses after the war. I say it would be very much better, as has been done by the London County Council, to supply and furnish according to the desires of the tenants the flats they are going to take. I beg of the Government to bear this in mind, that here, in what we have always called the common pool, there is a great mass of useful wealth for the people of this country. The great fear of big industry, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley, is being embarrassed by the release of this tremendous stock of goods. Their position is quite intelligible to me.

Sir G. Gibson: Does the hon. Member deny that the manner in which stocks were disposed of after the last war contributed enormously to the large amount of unemployment in this country from 1921 to 1925, the period of the slump?

Mr. Bowles: I do not deny it at all. It was one of the causes.

Sir G. Gibson: We do not want it to happen again.

Mr. Bowles: I am sure they do not want it to happen again, neither do we, but I do say that the way stocks were disposed of last time is not very far removed from


the way they will be disposed of this time if the policy in the White Paper is carried out. The Government have visualised in various White Papers which they have issued a shortage for some five or seven years after the war of consumer goods, such as furniture, which the Government are likely to have in their possession when the war comes to an end. I would beg the Government to realise that here we have an opportunity of doing something which will not interfere—although I am very anxious to do so—with private manufacturing and private distribution. It can well go side by side with them, provided it is properly done. Having regard to the views of a large number of Ministers, not only in their speeches but in White Papers, there will be such a shortage. Quite frankly there has always been a shortage of nearly everything so far as the great mass of the people are concerned. I do not know anyone who has gone into a very poor house who does not know perfectly well that the people there are short of almost everything that makes life worth living. I say, therefore, that with this stock which the Government are likely to have at the end of the war, a very good job of work can be done by proper and adequate distribution amongst the people of this country.
Then the Minister said something about Government property abroad, that so far as the property is in the hands of foreign, Colonial and Dominion Governments, they would, no doubt, enter into agreements rather along the lines of the Government in this country. Of course they are likely to do that because, on the whole, they are Governments of the same complexion. They believe in private enterprise and do not believe in communal ownership and distribution. But there is likely also to be a certain amount of surplus wealth in the Soviet Union, and I should be interested to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether any idea has been conceived as to organising distribution by the Soviet Union Government of surplus British stocks there when the war comes to an end. There is no doubt in my right hon. Friend's mind as to how he would like the South African Government to dispose of surplus British stocks there, and that is through the normal retail trade distribution.
The Minister said that when disposing of factories he would have regard to effective distribution for the general balance in industry throughout the country, that he would also have regard to the employment needs of the people, that he would also have regard to the export trade which the country would need to have after the war and, finally, he would have regard to the efficiency of the traders who were likely to take over the factories, which he said he was also proposing to dispose of in the same way, although they are only referred to in the Paper as being subject to a further statement.
I think a further statement has been made to-day by the President. He was quite specific. He is going to sell factories, not by auction, or lease them for a short time or long time, and is going to have regard to the different needs of the communities in the country, to their employment needs, to the export trade and to the efficiency of the people who are purchasers or lessees. That is all very well, but I do not see why the President should pursue the policy of allowing these things to go out of Government control. The President is allowing himself to be pushed into a position of getting rid of Government control and ownership and handing control back to private manufacturers and traders. Such manufacturers and traders had a good chance of showing their efficiency and of having factories in distressed areas before the war. They had regard to the needs of the export trade. Everything that the President regarded as being factors of importance to take into consideration in the disposal of these factories has already been tested. I suggest that my right hon. Friend, as a member of the Socialist Party, should steel his face against the distribution or leasing of public property to private traders.

Dr. R. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear that the trade unions agree to that policy, and also to the profit margin.

Mr. Bowles: I did not hear him say that the trade unions agreed.

Dr. Thomas: He did. The right hon. Gentleman was probably in a dilemma in regard to the demands of his party on the one hand and the needs of his country on the other.

Mr. Bowles: Well, I will accept it, but I did not hear him say anything about consultation with the trade unions, and I was here all the time. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say whether the right hon. Gentleman the President has had negotiations with the leaders of the trade union movement and that they have agreed to the disposal of Government stock and the making of profit out of it, because it is most important. It is true that we are not committing ourselves for one minute to the contents of this White Paper, but I do say that neither Labour Ministers nor trade union leaders have the right to commit members of this party to the contents of either the President's speech or of the White Paper.
The President said that it might be necessary for the release to spread over a term of years. How long do he and the Government visualise the continuance of the policy outlined in the White Paper? If the Conservative Party win the next election it will go by the board, if the Labour Party win it will also go by the board, and it will only be of some value if the Coalition continues in being. Therefore, how is it possible for the President to say that the policy will be spread over a number of years? I feel that the inherent difficulties facing a Coalition Government formed for the purpose of fighting a war will become more and more transparent to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Why do we go on with the farce of pretending that two parties so fundamentally disliking one another's principles, who hardly see eye to eye about anything—we are not fighting the same war so far as I can see—are in harmony? What I am concerned about is trying to blast this nonsense sky high.

The Deputy-Chairman: Whether it is nonsense or not it is not for me to say, but at any rate it does not come under this Vote.

Mr. Bowles: With all respect, Mr. Williams, here we have a hybrid scheme, made up of Tory and Labour policy, in connection with the disposal of surplus Government stocks after the war. Surely I am entitled to analyse the White Paper, which has been the burden of the President's song for about forty minutes, and to say that it is an impossible attempt to

solve the problem. Hon. Members opposite, like those on this side, have clear views as to where they stand, and with great respect I think it is hopeless and nonsense for Ministers and for us, who so fundamentally disagree, to bring out week after week and month after month things which bind none of us but bind only a Coalition Government, which may not be in being after the war.

Mr. Higgs: I obviously disagree with very many points which have been raised by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). He objects to his party being consulted now about the disposal of Government surplus stocks after the war. Are we going to let the matter remain until the war is over and get into a chaotic state before we give it serious consideration? I admit that the White Paper is somewhat sketchy and incomplete, but I suggest that now is the time to consider the problem, and I will give some concrete facts of what is happening before I sit down.

Mr. Bowles: The President said that he thought a good many of these things would be carried out by another Parliament. If the hon. Member was a Member of that new Parliament, would he carry out the terms of this White Paper?

Mr. Higgs: I have a higher opinion of the President than the hon. Member has.

Mr. Bowles: Would the Conservative Party carry out this White Paper? Would the hon. Member carry it out?

Mr. Higgs: I will say whether I would or not if the hon. Member will give me a chance. The Debate so far seems to have centred round public and private enterprise and private profit, rather than round the problems outlined in the White Paper. There is a dividing line between public and private enterprise. Where a wayleave is necessary it should be public enterprise, otherwise it should be private enterprise. The hon. Member for Nuneaton seems to think it is a disgrace to make a profit. Does he realise that there is such a thing as competition, which is a far greater deterrent to making a profit than Government control? We cannot sell goods at what prices we like. It depends upon what a competitor fixes his price at. To-day people have to be very efficient and smart to make a profit, and will have to be more so after the war.


I am disappointed that the White Paper did not deal with buildings, to which the President referred, and with another problem of considerable importance, the disposal of machine tools, which has not been mentioned. Obviously, the trade associations will press for as high prices as they can get, but I am not altogether in favour of that. If stocks are kept for a considerable time they become obsolete. The Committee is well aware that motor-cars produced here before the war will be completely out of date after the war, in relation to those being produced in America. If we are to retain the articles referred to in the White Paper for an indefinite period they will have no disposal value. Therefore, we must keep the balance between the depreciation of prices and getting something for the State in order to ease our financial problems. Some items for disposal, such as raw materials, will keep for an indefinite period, and that will create one of our great difficulties after the war. This country has no nonferrous metals, leather or timber. They have to be imported and, therefore, all the salvage we can get out of the surplus stocks will be of considerable value. We have to get these materials in order to export, and if we cannot import them they will be of considerable value.
I suggest that there should be a central control for distribution, with delegation to the regions. I think it would be a great mistake if everything had to be referred to the central control. The regional officers, who have had so much experience during the war, know practically every firm individually, and the question of how material should be disposed of should, to a great extent, be delegated to them. If protection lapses control will become impossible. Contracts are being cancelled and machine tools are being released from production. In the Midlands there are many machine tools, owned by the Government, who are hardly aware they exist. It should be the duty of the regional controllers to tabulate these machines forthwith. I know of cases where copper is being disposed of at £12 below the market price. It is to the advantage of the people who are storing it to get rid of it, because no manufacturer has unlimited room for stock. It is the duty of the Government to see that it is not disposed of, and especially to see that machine tools are not sold in this way. A ring fence should

be put round them as soon as contracts are cancelled.
There is another question that will arise. The present staffs in the regional departments will want to get back to their own jobs, and new personnel will be engaged when peace comes. Now is the time to get this control in working order. There is at the present time a racket with regard to spare parts for cars. It is the easiest thing in the world to get a spring or any other component from a car and pay a reasonable price for it, with a result that the car, in a few months' time, will be looked upon as derelict and will be sold for a break-up price, whereas if there was better control of this surplus stock it would be to the benefit of the nation as a whole. The President of the Board of Trade referred to factories and said that lease was going to be the normal procedure and not sale. Probably that would be a satisfactory state of affairs for smaller factories, but for medium and large size factories, buildings which are to accommodate anything from 500 men upwards, leasing will be most unsatisfactory. In the running of medium and large size businesses alterations are constantly necessary, and to get permission every time for modifications and alterations in order to accommodate additional plant is a practical impossibility. Probably the Minister had something in his mind in that direction.
The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) suggested that the Ministry of Production or some other Ministry should control industry after the war. We do not want any more of this control than is necessary for the safety of the nation. Control must cease when the supply of goods exceeds the demand. Competition will then keep the price in its right place. Controls have been unavoidable and desirable during the war, and we are all pleased to submit to them, but as soon as the war is over and the supply of goods exceeds the demand, then will be the time to do away with controls. I am disappointed that the White Paper does not give more details about a great variety of articles between typewriters and trucks, raincoats and rollers. They happen to begin with the same letter, but such paragraphs mean nothing. It is unfortunate that we do not know more about the tabulation referred to in paragraph 9. Paragraph 10 (c) refers to "fair and reasonable price."


It is going to be very difficult to find out what a fair and reasonable price is. That is one of the great problems that a manufacturer has to decide when he puts his goods on to the market, and I do not think the Government will give as much attention to it as the industrialist has to. For instance, is a fair and reasonable price that at which a fully efficient firm can compete or is it when the least efficient firm is deprived of a profit? There is a very big margin between the two. I notice:
private corporations and associations membership of which will be open to traders handling the goods in question.
I should like to know what that means exactly and if it only includes trade associations and is confined to members of trade associations, or whether other people outside trade associations will be consulted.
Arrangements will be made where surplus articles have to be reconditioned.
Will those articles be reconditioned by the Government or by private enterprise? There are a lot of uncompleted stores for Russia. If they are not taken by the time peace is declared, who will be responsible for them?

Mr. W. J. Brown: I do not see that the White Paper and the speech of the President of the Board of Trade should cause any general disappointment, except possibly where I sit. Hon. Members opposite can hardly have expected the President of the Board of Trade to tolerate the anarchy that prevailed at the end of the last war, profitable as that anarchy was to those who dealt in surplus stock, so that they cannot be disappointed either with the White Paper or with the right hon. Gentleman's speech. Hon. Members on this side can hardly have expected the right hon. Gentleman or the Government to say that the fact that we are in possession of great factories, great establishments, large quantities of surplus stocks, and so on, gives us an opportunity of taking a substantial stride forward in catering for the needs of our people. They can hardly have expected that the President of the Board of Trade, in a Coalition Government, should have come forward with a proposal that we should treat the supply of boots, clothing, food and shelter for the civil population in time of peace with the same intensity of organisation as we have had with the manufacture of

armaments during the war, or that they should propose to use the resources in the hands of the State to that end. For the Labour Party to expect that would have been to carry political innocence to the point of folly. They ought not to be upset because the White Paper disappoints the hopes of the future as well as falsifying anticipations based on experience of the past.
This is the only kind of document that could conceivably have come out of this Administration. It has about it all the marks of inevitability. The hon. Member who spoke last complained that the President of the Board of Trade has been over-laid by the Parliamentary Secretary. I agree that that was a deplorable thing to happen, but he was asking for something more. He was asking that the Labour Party should go to bed with the Tory Party in a Coalition Government, but yet produce no permanent consequences. To me that is a ridiculous expectation. You may say that the consequences would be of a bastard character, but that is another matter. To ask that there shall be no consequences is unreasonable. When I contrast my hon. Friend's complaint with the repeated demands we have had for a declaration of Government policy on all kinds of postwar problems, I feel that my colleague, for whom I have a great affection, was being a little less than normally reasonable. This is a compromise document bearing all the marks of the Coalition. It is on the lines of every other document that we have had from them. That is all that can be got out of the political situation, until some party arises strong enough to break that situation, or until social forces make the present line-up in politics impossible.
I want to draw attention to one provision of the White Paper and to deal with its application to a particular case which, in my view, calls for exceptional treatment, and on which I want to invoke the sympathy of the Committee. Paragraph 10 (c) reads:
To ensure, if necessary by statutory price control, that the prices charged to the ultimate consumer are fair and reasonable in relation to the current prices of similar articles.
With that, as a general declaration of intention, I have no particular quarrel, granted the social set-up in which we live. But there is one category of purchasers at the end of the war to whom that phrase


will represent the grossest injustice. During the war the Government have taken over a pretty considerable section of the holiday trade. It has commandeered the premises and furniture of thousands of hotels, boarding houses, holiday camps and so on.
I make no objection that that should happen. It was inevitable that, where they could be conscripted into the war effort, they should be so conscripted. But let me tell the Committee how they were treated in respect of the prices paid for their stuff, which they will want to get back at the end of the war. They must get it back to be able to start business again. Therefore there will be purchasers. As far as land and buildings are concerned, the Government paid a rent under the Defence Compensation Act, 1939. As far as perishable goods were concerned—sheets, blankets, pillow cases and things of that sort—the Government bought at the beginning of the war period, and the owners of the goods ceased to have an interest in them. But there was another category which I should describe as "less perishable goods," far which the Government for a period paid rent, and then bought out at a later stage. So we have had two types of purchase—the purchase of perishable goods at the beginning of the war, and the purchase of less perishable goods at a later date, purchases which are still going on. Under the Defence Compensation Act, 1939, an Act which I cannot but feel passed through the House with insufficient attention paid to it in detail, at whatever period of the war the Government bought commodities they were limited to paying for them at the prices ruling in 1939. In other words, although the cost of furniture might have doubled, trebled or quadrupled between 1939 and 1944, the Government pay for it in terms of 1939 values.
Let me illustrate what happens, and confess my interest in the matter, as I ought to. I am the President of the Holiday Camp Proprietors Federation, and I am a shareholder in a couple of holiday camps which the Government have taken over. I make that public, as I have a direct interest in the matter. The Government have recently decided to buy the furniture of one of my holiday camps. It cost us £10,000 before the war. The Government propose to pay £5,000 for it. If I want to buy that stuff in the open market a year hence to get the camp

going, I shall have to pay, not the £5,000 which the Government now give me, and not the £10,000 which it cost me, before the war, but probably three or four times that figure, because furniture has risen by three or four times.
I am not going to argue at this stage the injustices of the 1939 Act. There are many graver injustices in the world, and I do not want to go back to that. But I do say that, if under an Act of Parliament the Government claim the right to take from thousands of hotel, boarding house and holiday camp proprietors, at 1939 prices, the materials for earning their living, they ought to be allowed access to surplus Government stocks at the same sort of figure when the war ends. I submit that that is a fair claim to make on behalf of those people whose furniture and stuff have been commandeered by the Government.

Mr. Gallacher: Everybody will be on the grab.

Mr. Brown: I am not asking for anything more than the restoration of the stuff that was taken. That, especially coming from me, is the height of modesty! It is to ask that there should be in a holiday camp or a hotel at the end of the war the furniture that was there at the beginning. I would remind the Committee that the Government were under no obligation to commandeer the stuff. They could have rented it. They chose, however, to exercise their powers under the 1939 Act in a way which, unless we safeguard the position of these people, will do a great injustice to them. They are a section which the Government are anxious to put back into business at the end of the war. I will not venture to prophesy, but I am inclined to think that when the war ends we shall see a spontaneous down-tools movement, as we saw at the end of the last war. People are tired and want a holiday, and the movement to take a holiday at the end of the war will be nation-wide. The facilities for taking it, however, will not be available unless the seaside boarding houses, hotels and holiday camps are able to start business again, and the desire of the Government that they should start business at the earliest moment will be frustrated. It will be impossible for many of them ever to reopen at all.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee on behalf of the


holiday camps that, if they get the furniture from the Government at a cheap rate, they will not charge the high rates that others are likely to charge?

Mr. Brown: I have resisted for years any attempt on the part of the Labour Party to extract pledges from me, and I cannot at this late hour accede to any request for pledges from the Communist Party. I am not asking for the furniture at a cheap rate. I am asking that it should be restored at the same rate as that at which it was taken from us. I cannot imagine any fairer claim than that. I do not say that the Government are against this. I believe that some Departments know the existence of this problem and are giving it attention, but I have referred to it to-day because there is a terrific contrast in the treatment of this section and the treatment of other sections. When we took over the railways we guaranteed them the whole of their pre-war revenue with a bit on top. When we took over shipping we took over at statutory chartering rates plus the cost of insurance. When we took over Short Bros. we paid 23s. each for their 5s. shares. That was the reward of inefficiency! When the Government deal with the poor little seaside boarding house proprietor, or the not-so-poor holiday camp proprietor, they are given terms which bear no relation to the compensation terms given to the more powerful interests. Unless we enable them to get their furniture back at something like the price at which the Government took it from them their industry will not get going again. It will drive many people out of business if they have to buy their furniture at the inflated prices that will rule at the end of the war. Therefore, I bespeak the interest of the Government, and the support of the Committee, for the badly treated section of the community whose case I am trying to put.

Mr. Hammersley: I am sure that the observations which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has just made in connection with the hotel trade have evoked a certain feeling of sympathy in all sections of the Committee. It is true that their furniture has been commandeered at 1939 prices, as, indeed, is the basis on which all materials and works taken by the Government have been compensated for. There

is clearly a hardship. I should like my hon. Friend to agree that to the extent that there is a hardship to the hotel industry, there is a similar hardship to all industries where compensation has been paid at 1939 prices.
I would like to say a word of welcome to this White Paper and to ask a few questions. Before I do so I would like to examine one or two observations made by hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), and certain arguments he put forward. The hon. Member pointed out that some £2,000,000,000 of money had been invested in State enterprise, which he mentioned as the value of State-owned assets. He compared this figure with the figure of £350,000,000 of private investment, and from that comparison he indicated that, if the State had made an invesment of that kind—large in comparison with private investment—State investment ought to be proceeded with and there ought to be a furtherance of State enterprise. I consider that these two figures he gave are not comparable. I am, however, prepared to accept them for the sake of his argument.

Sir Frank Sanderson: The hon. Member did not say it was investment in enterprise, but investment in raw materials and manufactured commodities.

Mr. Hammersley: I am aware of what he said, and I am not dealing with its accuracy. I am dealing with the accuracy of his argument, and the conclusion he deduced from the figures. He indicated by an examination of the figures that the State had a much greater interest in production than private enterprise. Of course, that is not true. The whole of our production for war purposes is something like 60 per cent. of total production. I do not know what proportion of that war production is produced from State enterprise, but it is certainly much less than 50 per cent. If we assume—and I do not agree that it is so—that one half of this 60 per cent. of total production is produced because of State enterprise, it would appear that the £2,000,000,000 public investment in relation to the £350,000,000 private investment has produced much less, although it is a much greater sum. In fact, it would indicate an inefficiency of 1-in-27; that is based on the 50 per cent. and the fact that six times as much


public money is engaged. If we accept the hon. Member's figures as comparable it would indicate an inefficiency of public enterprise of 1-in-27, and that is an indication which I would not accept. The comparison of these two figures is erroneous and misleading, as that conclusion would show. The figures are not comparable, for the one deals with money invested and the other deals with the value of made goods.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said he did not believe in making profits. On the question of disposal, however, surely the matter which the Committee have to look at is the welfare of the community as a whole and the efficiency of the means of distribution. If it can be proved that by maintaining the State as a means of distribution, expenses are piled up, the community will have to pay a higher price for the goods than otherwise. I think that the Government are wise in deciding that in distributing surplus goods they will use the most efficient forms of distribution. This matter is one of great importance. It was important in the last war, and it will be much more important in this. Sixty per cent. of our production has been going to war purposes for five years. That is a formidable figure. There will be a massive accumulation of spare parts and a great deal of obsolete equipment and plant, and on top of that there will be the current stores. I am not satisfied that the use of what is described as the ordinary trade channels to deal with obsolete equipment and plant will be quite satisfactory. There will be no civilian market for a lot of materials like tanks and things of that kind, and something will have to be done in advance to decide what is to be done with the scrapping of these obsolete vehicles through an organisation which cannot be considered normal. I imagine that the sooner the scrapping programme is started the better.
The Government have rightly decided not to make the mistakes we made in the last war, not to sell the surplus stores to the highest bidder, and not to dispose of them to those who are interested only in buying cheaply and selling dearly. I have no doubt that, as a result of the Government's examination of the position, there will not be the profiteering after this war in surplus stores that there

was after the last war. It will be a great pity if surplus goods are hanging over the market. I agree with the speech of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in which he said that we are not only going to provide for orderly disposal, but that we are going to bear in mind the effect on current production of similar goods so that the existence of surplus stocks will not be allowed to prevent employment in the various industries producing such goods being resumed at the earliest opportunity.
I welcome the statement of principles laid down in paragraph 10. They are, I think, principles to which we cannot take the slightest exception, but it should be borne in mind that surplus goods must be got into the hands of those who urgently require them as quickly as possible. In that connection, I wonder whether arranging the disposal of them through these various trade associations will not run us into the risk or the danger of those trade associations conniving at some kind of scarcity market. I am sure the Government have that danger in mind—in fact the President of the Board of Trade mentioned it. In the President's statement of 2nd November, I felt that in deciding to use these trade channels of distribution after the war there was possibly a danger of falling into too narrow a channel of distribution. I think the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "normal channels of distribution." What I would really like to know is, what that term "normal" means. We do not want to get distribution into a closed corporation of the respective trade. We do not want to carry, too far, this slogan of keeping out the interlopers. I rather feel, from what I know of the matter, that the Government will be inclined to define the "normal channels of distribution" as those engaged in the trade prior to 1939. That is not going to be quite satisfactory.
I think it should be appreciated that since 1939 many people have been engaged in various industries who were not in those industries before 1939, and I should think that those genuinely employed in such industries should be entitled to come into the various trade associations which may be set up as the channels of distribution. I think there is already mooted a Textile Disposal Corporation who are setting up their constitution rather narrowly. I think it


would be a pity if it were drawn too narrowly. I do not think we want to prevent new blood getting into industries, even if only distributive industries. Some hon. Members spoke about the desirability of putting a ringed fence round the machine-tool industry as soon as the war was over. I think that is very undesirable. I feel that at the present moment the Government could be doing much to deal with machine tools. There are many machine tools in the possession of the Government which are comparatively old and which, I understand, are being scrapped. I think it would be a better policy if, instead of scrapping these machine tools, the Government circulated the whole trade saying these machine tools were for disposal so that very much older machine tools in the possession of private ownership throughout industry could be scrapped first, and the industry given the opportunity of obtaining those proposed to be scrapped by the Government. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say a word on that.
Then mention was made about stocks in foreign countries. Undoubtedly there will be very large stocks in foreign countries when the war is over, and I hope we shall be able to make some arrangement at a very early stage in respect to such surplus stores. I know that the President of the Board of Trade has spoken about the arrangements now being made in the Commonwealth, with the Dominions and the Allies, but I am referring rather to stores in foreign countries. What springs to one's mind straight away, of course, is France. In the last war I well remember the following incident being brought to my notice. A British company was engaged to purchase and to break down the British ammunition which was left in France and Belgium. They were proposing to sell the scrap to Britain and the United States at, I think, £8 a ton. Very shortly afterwards, the French Government imposed an embargo on the export of scrap. Then the steel users in France made a combine. The result was that the British company could only sell this scrap at the price which the French combine were prepared to pay, which was some 30s. a ton. I hope that an eventuality of this kind will be safeguarded against, and that the Government will see that surplus stores

physically situated in foreign countries are subject to some kind of agreement in advance with the Governments of these liberated countries.
The points about factories seem to me not to be covered by the White Paper, but I agree with an hon. Member who suggests that if you are to dispose of large Government factories, it is going to be very difficult for them to pass into the hands of private enterprise on the basis of leasing. Large manufacturers really want to control their own premises. They want to be assured of continuity. They want to feel that they are entitled to make alterations as and when necessary. I do not think the policy of leasing would be quite satisfactory. In any case, I am glad to see that on the question of the disposal of factories, which involves large questions of policy, the Government are not inclined to see social theories brought in by the back door. Generally, I feel that the White Paper is a statement of principles which are acceptable to the country as a whole, and I am glad the Government are paying attention to this problem and laying down principles of commonsense, although one does not know about their practical application.

Mr. Gallacher: I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) when he says that this White Paper does not represent any plan at all, and I would say, in opposition to the hon. Member who has just sat down, that it contains no principles. It represents an unholy desire to stake the claims and protect the interests of private enterprise. That, and nothing more.

Sir G. Gibson: Nonsense.

Mr. Gallacher: But what continually strikes me here is the smug complacency with which the representatives of the bourgeois robbers continually accept, as taken for granted, that what is in their interest must be right and what is against their interest must be wrong.

Sir I. Albery: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is in Order for an hon. Member to refer to the constituents of other Members as "bourgeois robbers"?

Mr. Gallacher: If these representatives came here and spoke for their constituencies, I might show appreciation. They never speak for their constituencies; they


speak only for their business interests. Nobody can say that the hon. Member who has just sat down was speaking for his constituency.

Mr. Hammersley: On the contrary, I am in the happy position of knowing that the interests of my constituency are best served by the best interests of British industry, and I am glad I have been voicing those sentiments to-day.

Mr. Gallacher: The smug complacency of it. When some of the Members on this side proposed that the mines should be transferred from the mineowners to the State, we were told by no less a person than the Prime Minister that we could not discuss that because it was controversial. The Prime Minister said it, and all the Conservatives agreed that we cannot discuss the transfer of private industry to the State because it is controversial; yet we can discuss the transfer of national property to private enterprise. That is not controversial. Can anyone explain that difference to me? The smug complacency of the Conservatives in this country! Their whole moral concept is based upon the assumption that anything which is in their interests is right while anything which is in the interests of the mass of the people and against their interests is wrong.
One hon. Member spoke about high speed steel being sold for scrap. Why cannot the Government use that scrap? Why cannot they put it into a furnace and bring it out for other uses? Is the hon. Member who last spoke more concerned about certain profit-grabbers getting control of material and getting profit out of it than he is about houses and furniture for the people of his constituency? Are there not masses of material that could be used by the Government to provide houses, furniture, fireplaces, cooking utensils and all the rest of it? Any amount of it. One of the biggest problems that will confront us in securing the health and well-being of the people in planning our towns will be to provide open spaces and playing-fields for the children. I could take the hon. Member to Glasgow and other cities where he would see mile after mile of foetid streets which are bound to be ravaged by disease, and see the helpless and innocent boys and girls playing there in the gutters. Is there not any amount of material to

provide amenities for playing fields which would be so valuable in improving the health and physique of our children? Did the hon. Member who just spoke have any of those things in his mind? No, just profits that people are wanting to make, and he wanted to make sure that they got them. He was very concerned about someone who had bought material and did not get a profit, because the French Government——

Mr. Hammersley: The hon. Member has asked me whether I have any concern as to whether our people have playing fields. I have a concern, and I had a concern on the matter before the hon. Member ever entered this House.

Mr. Gallacher: Then why did not the hon. Member mention it, in connection with all this material that is going to be scrapped? Why cannot the Government put it into the furnace and bring it out to make all these conveniences for the playing fields of our children? That is not in his mind. The only thought in his mind is an opportunity for getting profit.
I should like to say a word about the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). He started off in philosophic fashion about where the other side stood and where this side stood, but he "came down to brass tacks" before he finished, and he was more concerned about the Government having paid 1939 prices for furniture in the hotels and boarding houses they had requisitioned and the people concerned having to buy it back at post-war prices. If the people running hotels and holiday camps have to pay higher prices for the furniture, we can take it for granted that they will charge very much higher prices for accommodation. The hon. Member said there would be a terrific rush for holidays; what is going to happen when that rush takes place? If the price of furniture is to be controlled in such a way that these people can get furniture at 1939 prices, then their charges for boarding and camping should also be controlled.
The Government owe something to the lads who are fighting. When the lads come back, they will want homes, furniture, boots and shoes, playing fields for their children and greater amenities and opportunities than they have ever had before. All the wealth of Government materials can be used for those purposes.


Moreover, every one of those lads will be entitled to a job. If a man has not the right to a job he has not the right to anything. He will want to make a home and have a decent standard of life. Are we going to guarantee those lads the right to a job? We can only guarantee them the right to a job if we control the means of providing a job. Otherwise, we cannot promise them anything. We can only leave them at the mercy of somebody who is concerned with profits.
The Government have in their possession at the present time the means of providing jobs for many thousands of these lads. Hon. Members are asking the Government to give it away so that the Government cannot provide jobs for anyone, but must leave the lads at the mercy of the monopoly interests of this country. I say to the Government: "It is your duty to the people of this country, and above all to the lads, to hold on to the factories and the assets that you have and to use them in such a way as to provide the maximum opportunity for the lads who have been doing the fighting, and also to the maximum advantage of the people of the country."

Sir George Schuster: I do not propose to answer in detail the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), but I hope I shall be able to make a few remarks that will convince him that one can look at these matters not with the point of view of a bourgeois robber and yet differ from him in many respects. I want to make only a few short observations. We are in a difficulty in this Debate. The document before us is nebulous. It is a pretty thin one, and it does not deal with the very important matter of the disposal of factories, on which the right hon. Gentleman gave us a statement of policy to-day. We find ourselves confronted therefore with a rather wider issue than is covered in the White Paper. I hope that we shall soon reach the period when we can get away from generalities and get down to a detailed appreciation of what is to be the economic structure of the country after the war. I found the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman completely unexceptionable, and yet I found myself sharing some of the doubts, though not all the detailed sentiments, of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).
I want to raise really five questions on this matter. They are, 1: Does this proposal "mean business"? 2: Where is the responsibility? 3: Will the national interest dominate on all the choices that have to be taken? 4: Will the timing be right? 5: Is there, even yet, a correct appreciation of the problems with which we shall be faced? On the question whether this means business, I hope my right hon. Friend will not take amiss what I have to say. I feel very often nowadays that, in considering this matter of post-war preparations, we are in just as great an emergency, facing just as critical a time in the years that will follow this war, as we were at the time when we ought to have been planning for war. We were told before the war that all sorts of preparations were made. We were given numbers of these general statements about what was being done; but we found when the emergency came that we were far behind what we had been led to expect. Therefore I ask myself now, Is the same sort of thing going to happen again? I have the feeling sometimes that one has when one goes in to a see a film, "This is where I came in." I wonder whether this is the point where I came in, the point of failure to prepare in time and adequately. I ask, are we preparing with due seriousness and urgency for the problems we shall have to face after the war? It is not good enough to be told, as we were told by the right hon. Gentleman, that we are going to do much better than last time. Merely to do better than last time is not enough. We have very much more difficult problems to face after this war than we had after the last war.
The hon. Member for Stoke called attention to one matter which seemed to reinforce one's doubts about the reality of the Government's plans on these matters. He called attention to a Report by the Select Committee on National Expenditure which tried to examine this question of what would be the Government's stores and property at the end of this war. I was very glad he called attention to it because it is a Committee of which I happen to be a member, and we do not find that our Reports generally receive quite as much attention as we think they deserve. I can say that it came as a great shock to the Committee to find that nowhere within the Government was anyone charged with keeping a complete record, a complete inventory,


of Government property. I refuse to believe that we can prepare properly for the disposal of property if we do not know what we have got.
On my next point, as to where is the responsibility, I would ask whether this matter is to be handled by one Minister or whether there is going to be confusion, or what is commonly called co-ordination. I want to raise one particular point in paragraph 17 (a) of the White Paper. We find that the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production will both have very important parts to play in this programme. The Ministry of Supply, as I understand it, is a war-time Department. How long is the Ministry of Supply to function? I know it is a difficult question to answer, but it is connected in my mind with what I believe to be a very important consideration which I wish to put to my right hon. Friend and to his colleagues on the Front Bench. We have been told in the White Paper on employment policy that the Board of Trade is to carry the primary responsibility on all matters of industrial policy, and that the Board of Trade is to be suitably strengthened for that purpose. I want to know when that responsibility is to begin to operate and when the suitable strengthening of my right hon. Friend's Department is to start.
I see the need for the handling of these matters with an eye to our constructive industrial tasks in the future, and I see my right hon. Friend apparently charged, or very shortly to be charged, with the responsibility for leadership in these matters. Yet I see him operating in a field in which there are huge colossi of wartime Departments, the Ministry of Supply and all the other wartime Ministries which, I imagine, must have a considerably greater say in all these matters than he has. Is he, for example, entitled to inquire into the future of the iron and steel industry? What has his colleague the Minister of Supply to say to that? Yet there we have a fundamental part of the structure of British industry which needs to be considered. Therefore I think one is entitled to raise this question, Where is the responsibility? Is it going to rest clearly enough on particular shoulders, so that we can trust to this job being done properly and in a properly concerted way?
I come to my next question, Will the national interest dominate at all points? There I claim to be on common ground with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that when any question of doubt arises the only criterion should be, What is the national interest? I happen to believe that the Government are right in suggesting that the handling of the disposal of these stores should be left mainly to the people who are in that particular business already. I say that not because I want them to get a profit; I think the word "profit" is misleading. I want them brought in to do a service, but I would not defend that policy unless I felt convinced that by these means the Government would get the job done very much more cheaply and effectively than it would be if they tried to handle the whole thing themselves from some huge centralised Department. That is fair ground to take. I may be wrong and the hon. Gentleman may be right, but do not let us have this argument about "profit" all the time. It is out of their so-called profit margin that these people would have to carry their expenses for handling these very important transactions.
On the question of timing, my fourth point, that links up with what I was going to say on my next point. It seems to me that a great deal of business ought to be considered even now. I am very much concerned about all I hear of the way in which we are losing opportunities for just keeping a foothold in export markets. The excuse is always put up tat the war emergency comes first, and so, of course, it does, but I believe that if one goes about the country one finds now many places where there is not great urgency of demand. One finds materials available, and even a small quantity of material properly allocated now would help many of our export industries to keep a footing in markets which they are in danger of losing permanently. Therefore, I hope this whole question covered by this White Paper will not be considered as a problem which only begins when hostilities are over.
My last point, which I must deal with very briefly, is the question whether the problem will be properly appreciated. We have heard a great deal about consumer demand, and I hope very much there will be no attempt to hold stocks when there is a real consumer demand for them. But


we have not heard nearly enough of the needs of industry for re-equipment, and I want to throw out an idea which I cannot possibly develop in full to-day. The whole of this matter of the disposing of the national assets and the handling of our national industrial equipment and set up must be viewed as a whole and fitted in together. We shall want to keep certain supplies going. We shall want to be able to supply certain export markets and our urgent consumer demand at home, but at the same time we shall lose our permanent place unless we direct some of our energies to the re-equipment and rehabilitation of our factories. I believe there needs to be worked out a sort of staggered programme by which certain factories are allowed to manufacture to meet consumer demand while others hold off to re-equip themselves. I do not believe that is a problem which can properly be regulated in the national interest unless the Government is exercising some general supervision and general guidance.
It is for that reason that I have pleaded for objective consideration of all these questions, without raising at every point the controversy about private ownership and Socialism. Let us, as I ventured to say in an earlier Debate, look at the matter and try to appreciate our position in a realistic way and ask ourselves what are the tasks that have to be done by bringing in the organising power and all the information and sources of information available to the State and at what points we are going to fail if we handle too much centrally. I believe that those two questions apply to the handling of certain stores just as much as they apply to all the other issues which are involved in our policy of providing full employment—that goal which we all long to see attained.
What I want finally to put to my right hon. Friend is simply this. I will back him up in every stage of his plans, if he means business, but I promise him, and every other Member of the Government, my complete uncompromising criticism and hostility on every possible occasion if I find that, when the need arises, they are not ready with proper plans to deal realistically with tasks which, as I have already said, are going to be just as vital to the future of this country as were those that faced us at the beginning of this war.

Mr. A. Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) for expressing so clearly the grave doubts which many of us feel about the Government's preparedness for the emergency which is approaching. I agree with him that it will be almost as great an emergency as that which we faced when the war came. I believe that the Government are not nearly so prepared as they have led us to suppose. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Reports of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. I spent two years working practically full-time on that Committee, with the hon. Gentleman. I resigned from that Committee for the simple reason that, when we had issued 50 Reports, the Government had refused to give a single day for discussing any of them. Over 30 Members were giving practically their whole time to considering these important matters, and they issued Reports frequently, and all we got from the Departments was an offensive summary, saying that they had been carefully considered. I remember that a very important Report, to which I drew the attention of the House, was dismissed by the Department in four sentences. They said, "We hope that this will be accepted by the Committee as adequate comment." That was an insult to the House of Commons.
One of our Reports was about the overstaffing of the Departments. I visited the Ministry of Supply on one occasion, and saw the Minister. When I had finished my business with him I went to one of the highest officials there. He assured me that we need not worry about over-staffing, because they were going to get rid of many of the officials. He agreed that there were far too many people, drawing big salaries, but he said that it was all right, because there was going to be a clean sweep. I said, "What do you mean by a clean sweep?" He said, "I can give you 1,000 before lunch." I assumed, from the way he spoke, that there would be another 1,000 before dinner. I gave him a month, and then went back; and I found that the only person who had been swept out was that gentleman himself. That is an indication of the power of the officials who reply to a very important Report of ours in four sentences, saying, "We hope that this


will be accepted by the Committee as adequate comment." This is not an attack on the Civil Service, but an attack on a state of mind. No individual is made to be responsible, but everybody is able to say, "It is not my responsibility," and you can never track down the person, or even the Department, that is responsible. I would far rather give one man very great powers, and make him responsible, and be able to sack him if he fails, than allow many people to pass on the responsibility from one to the other.
One hon. Gentleman, who has now left the Chamber, referred to some figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), and misled the Committee, perhaps not deliberately. He said that the figures quoted by my hon. Friend showed that the Government investment amounted to £2,000,000,000, and the private enterprise investment to £350,000,000, and that, as private enterprise produced more than 50 per cent. of the total armaments, that showed how inefficient was Government control. He said that my hon. Friend's figures were wrong. My hon. Friend's figures were all right. He was taking into consideration the enormous sums of money that the Government had to spend on factories, not productive in themselves, which were let to these people with an investment of £350,000,000. If they had not produced more than 50 per cent., they would have been extremely inefficient. The hon. Gentleman was misleading the Committee by suggesting that the Government were just one-fifth as efficient as private enterprise. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of apologising for that contribution to the Debate.
The problem facing us is that men, through hard work, through blood, sweat, and toil, have produced this enormous surplus. You would think the problem could be solved by the men taking a holiday. In any sane system they would be told, "Having worked so hard to produce this surplus, you can now take it easy for a time." One hon. Gentleman said that we should keep the controls until supply equalled demand, and then get rid of the controls. That is to say, we should get through all the real difficulties with controls, and then, as he said, rather naively, "Competition will take care of us." Of course it will. It may even cut prices for a time until the

inefficient people are knocked out of business, and their businesses are bought by the others, but then prices will go up. What the Government are aiming at is the stablising of prices, of production, and of employment. The hon. Member who says "Competition will take care of us," seeks to destroy the whole of that policy. Under competition they do not profess to have stabilised prices. It is a matter of cutting prices until they have a monopoly, and then of raising the prices.
I have a friend who is in business, selling a very small commodity costing about 1s. 6d. At the end of the war there will probably be enough of these gadgets to last us for 10 years. The trade association say, "The Government should sell them to the industry at a penny apiece, arid we will agree to destroy them. Then we can keep our factories going producing the normal demand in the post-war world." That shows the falsity of the whole system under which we are existing. It suggests that men want work for work's sake. They do not; they want work for wages, and they want wages to buy the necessities of life. We have even tried the same thing with ships—destroying two ships to leave us with one new one. That is an insane way of doing things. There must be a more sane way. If we are going to preach coalition, let us practise coalition. The Minister said that one of our problems would be a shortage of factories. I thought there was going to be a surplus of factories. Does the Minister really contend that we shall have a real shortage of productive capacity?

Mr. Dalton: What I said was that there would be a shortage of good modern factories. As my hon. Friend knows, a lot of the factories in this country are neither good nor modern.

Mr. Edwards: I should have thought that there was an enormous number of very modern factories erected during the war.

Mr. Dalton: Enormous?

Mr. Edwards: The problem is that a good many of them are not in the right places. The Minister found himself in the position of having to put factories in places where nobody ever thought of putting them before. I should not, however, have thought that there would


be a serious shortage. The capitalists do not want to rent these factories. They object to that. They want to buy them from the Government. Well, I have no objection to that.
I come now to paragraph 10, which is the heart of this thing, and to the question of the rate of release, the method or channel of distribution and price control. I would like to know just at what rate these stocks are to be released into the trade schemes. Some things, of course, will be obsolete, and you may have to get rid of them. What is the rate at which goods will be released? Will it be a varying quantity but a fixed percentage of, say, 5, 10 or 50 per cent. per annum.? Will the Minister give us some inkling of what the formula will be, because it will be of very great importance to people within industries making their own programmes? As to channels of distribution, someone argued earlier in the Debate that the newcomers in industry should have a share in the spoils. It is true that a lot of people came into distribution during the war who were not in it before. One gentleman was placed in control of a very important industry by the Ministry of Supply, and I watched the way in which he deliberately introduced his own tools. I have watched in the Timber Control people manipulating imports of timber. That was not very pleasant to watch, and on one occasion there was a noise made about it, but not too much.
These people, because of the advantage they have taken of the war situation, ought not to get all the plums after the war. I think the genuine distributors in the trade before 1939 should be the people to distribute these things after the war, in proportion to the trade they did before the war. I think that would be a very fair way. These goods are not going to the highest bidder in an auction sale. There will be a fair amount of wastage. Will not the Minister tell us that there will be a valuation of the property to be disposed of? In other directions, we have been given to understand the basis on which valuation is to be made. I hope people are not going to get great bargains as some people did after the last war. The Minister said, I think quite rightly, that was what we were trying to avoid.
There is only one other thing I would like to say, and that is on the necessity of having a war potential. If we are considering the possibility of another war and the question of putting ourselves in a position to meet that possibility, I should have thought that Government control of property would be necessary and that no property in our war potential is going to be sold to anybody. While it might be left, I should have thought it would always be at the Government's disposal. We have heard of the case of one boiler being sold for £800 and another for £80, and we have heard that this is necessarily destructive of trade. We want to keep the prices at the lowest possible level. The boiler sold at £80 should have made some contribution to the reducton of costs and the community should have got the benefit.

Sir G. Gibson: The question is perfectly simple. If, with any commodity, the Government flood the market at an uneconomic price, they will depress industry and throw people out of work. There is no alternative. That policy of buying a boiler for £80 at which price it could not be produced, operated throughout the whole of industry, would throw people out of employment.

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend does not see the fallacy of his own case. The boiler would have been used in any case, whether it was bought for £80 or £800.

Sir G. Gibson: I was dealing only with one instance, and I said that if that kind of thing applied throughout the whole range of commodities, and if that was the policy operated by the Minister representing the Disposal Board, it would spell disaster for any particular industry.

Mr. Edwards: I think I see my hon. Friend's point and I am trying to correct him. Let me put this to him, because he must face it sooner or later. Before the war, there was an abundance of everything and no shortage of anything that human beings required for their health and happiness, and yet there were deliberately organised scarcity, poverty and starvation. There was one period when men were volunteering to fight for their country and five out of six were rejected. They had been starved and were victims of malnutrition. Look at the records of the period, when five out of every six were rejected. In the midst of abundance we deliberately


organised scarcity, and in the midst of war and of scarcity we have contrived to organise enough for everybody and a higher standard of life than existed before the war. Hon. Members who have preached that the system which did that is a bad system and must cease to be should thank goodness that many of us on this side of the Committee have insisted on some of this organisation, and they should set themselves to face, as the hon. Member for Walsall has just said to the Committee, a greater crisis ahead than that Which we had to face when we entered the war. Surely, in the interests of the people who have done the fighting, we are not going back to this insane, cutthroat competition. Let the Committee awaken to a realisation of the position.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), who made what is from some points of view an admirable speech, ruined it, in my opinion, by using several times a term which I feel sure on further consideration he would wish to withdraw. He referred to "deliberately organised shortage" and "deliberately organised starvation." He has deliberately charged certain individuals in this country with deliberately organising the starvation of their fellow men. For one thing he knows it to be untrue, and he has no possible proof to justify such a declaration and charge against Members of this Committee or of any Government.

Mr. A. Edwards: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgotten the time when, they used to pour milk down the drains, throw fish back into the sea, and stoke the boilers in America with wheat? Can it be said that to do this in the midst of plenty is not to do it deliberately? They did it deliberately for the profit system. Hon. Members should crawl on their knees and apologise to the community and should not pretend that they did not Know it. They did not care.

Sir T. Moore: I admit that at times there was a certain lack of organisation in our pre-war trade. There was not that collaboration which should have led to the preservation of all the essential means of life, to which the hon. Member has just referred.

Mr. A. Edwards: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to evade the point.

There was a deliberate destruction of foodstuffs and the necessities of life. The system and the people whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman supports were responsible. They may plead ignorance, but they should have known the consequences.

Sir T. Moore: I agree that before the war there was a certain amount of disorganisation about our trade and that certain individuals such as those to whom the hon. Member referred adopted the sinful policy of trying to corner certain products of the earth for the benefit of their own pockets rather than to secure them for the benefit of the people as a whole. But I cannot accept that charge, nor do I think he would willingly make it himself if he were not speaking perhaps from those Benches, that certain members of our community are deliberately trying to starve their own fellow people. But that is by the way.
I happened to be, after the last war, associated with the supervision of Disposal Board stocks, and I was shocked at the methods then adopted. That is why I hoped that I might catch your eye, Mr. Williams, so that I might be able to make a few remarks in this Debate. There were contracts involving millions of pounds given to obscure suburban auctioneers, to men with no knowledge of the types of goods they were handling at knock-down prices, and these colossal profits—I am using the word "colossal" deliberately—were made at the expense of the consumer and the Government. In fact the consumer was paying twice, first as taxpayer to produce the goods, and, secondly, as consumer to buy them. There were many palms being greased in the process. That is what we want to evade in this connection.

Mr. A. Edwards: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be having to apologise.

Sir T. Moore: I think that the White Paper goes a long way towards providing the formula, but not far enough. I liked the speech of the President of the Board of Trade much better than I like the White Paper. It was clear, it was more decisive, and it was certainly much more enlightened. If the right hon. Gentleman carries out the obligations implied in his speech, and ignores the White Paper, probably we shall get much further in the wise and orderly disposal of the nation's goods after this war. There are many


points in the White Paper with which I do not agree. There was one point which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon, although the White Paper mentions it, and it is one which is rather important. It is the last item in the White Paper and the first one with which I will deal, namely, Lend-Lease. I am not different from the rest of this Committee. I do not understand Lend-Lease and I do not suppose that anyone else understands it either. At the same time unless it is made clear what our obligations to the United States will be after the war, it is no use talking about disposal. We have received hundreds of tanks, planes, trucks of various kinds, including equipment, from the United States, and if Lend-Lease means anything it means that we hand back these trucks when the lease has expired or when the loan period is over. Obviously, that is absurd. We should have some specific declaration from the Government on what will be our position, vis à vis America, in regard to the goods and finished articles we have received under Lend-Lease.
I would like to refer to what has also been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough, namely, the suggestion in the White Paper, and one which was subsequently elaborated by my right hon. Friend, that each practical Ministry will become its own disposal board, while my right hon. Friend and his Department act as the useful friend, or the honest broker. I do not think that that is right. I do not agree with it. You will have clashing and competing interests, and overlapping as long as you do not appoint one definite, even if temporary, Ministry to deal with this problem. You have a Ministry of Supply which is a war-time Ministry. It is bound to disappear; we have been told that it will disappear after the war, and possibly immediately after the war. Why not turn the Ministry of Supply into a temporary Ministry of Disposal with a view to co-ordinating all the various Ministries, taking from them possibly useful members of their staff, but having one Minister solely responsible who, as my right hon. Friend said, could be sacked if he proved to be inefficient?
We know that the Navy and the Air Force will have planes to dispose of; we know that the Army, Navy and Air Force will have trucks to dispose of. There is practically the same type of vehicle or

stores belonging to different Departments which obviously could be disposed of by the same Ministry. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend to think that over. The Ministry of Supply is there at hand, and I suggest they should be left in sole charge of the distribution and disposal of these stores.

Mr. Dalton: May I get my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion right? Is he including the question of fixing prices?

Sir T. Moore: I was coming to that. That will have to be done beforehand. It is not a question which could be decided as the disposal actually came into being. Price-fixing will have to be done before the war ends, with very slight fluctuations due to wear and tear, standing out in the open, and waiting at dumps, and so on. That can easily be arranged on a sliding scale, however, after the basic price has been fixed. There must, of course, be price control to protect the consumer. As I said at the beginning, I saw the consumer exploited to an intolerable degree after the last war, and it would be quite inconceivable for this Committee to agree that it should be done again. There will be a great temptation because a speculator, probably with vast funds behind him, or at his command, will come to the Government or appropriate Department and say, "I can save you all sorts of trouble and a lot of time. I will take over the whole of your particular type of stuff and arrange to dispose of it and take all the burden off your shoulders." Do not be deluded into that sort of thing. Let the Minister stick to his declaration that the various materials will be distributed, or disposed of only by the people who have been in the habit of handling them.
I am not so sure that my right hon. Friend is right in ruling auctions altogether out of the question. It may seem like tempting people to bid more than the actual market price, but what you want to do with these goods is to see that they are distributed where they are needed, all over the country, so that the small farmer who wants a plough will not be deprived of it because it may be disposed of 100 or 200 or 500 miles away. I think it would not be a bad idea to arrange for small dumps and auctions throughout the country so as to satisfy them that the market is where the goods are needed.

Mr. E. J. Williams: But surely the Ministry of Agriculture would be the best Department to organise that?

Sir T. Moore: Then we come back to overlapping of effort, which I deprecate. I still think it would be better to have it all under one Ministry. But let officers from the various Departments who have been concerned in handling this question, be attached to the Ministry of Supply. As my right hon. Friend himself said, the Ministry of Supply has been responsible for buying the majority of the goods which will subsequently be disposed of, and therefore it would seem that my proposal is not a bad one. Then there is the question of utilising the man with a big organisation. I have no great objection to that provided you fix a consumer's price and add on to that your 20 per cent., or whatever it may be, to cover handling storage, and all the various items that must, inevitably, arise between the man who buys and the man who sells. Twenty per cent. can be quite easily disposed of, if you are arranging storage, having regard to labour and getting out various plans. But that is a matter for the Ministry. I am not concerned with it because I am not a competitor in this matter. However, if you fix your consumers' price and then add on a legitimate payment for services—I will not call it profit because it is not—then T think that is probably a good method of disposal.
Another thing I noticed during my experience of the last war was that when the Government gave instructions for a certain type of vehicle or commodity to be disposed of, they did not make it clear that that was the ultimate commodity. It is necessary to make sure that if new vehicles and new stores or part-worn stores are sold and a different price obtained for each, it is actually the new stores and actually the part-worn stores that are supplied. Therefore, although I dislike suggesting it, I am afraid there should be inspectors to see that correct stores are sold for the correct basic price.
To what extent will our men, officers, and N.C.Os. have priority of claim on these stores before they are released to the general public? There will be hundreds and thousands of young men with gratuities, who wish to start out in some form of business and who might

well benefit considerably were they given priority rights in regard to this material and these stores before these are finally released to the public. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend has had that in mind because it seems such an obvious thing to do. Finally, my right hon. Friend mentioned in the White Paper that it might be advisable and appropriate to sell to or through a non-profit making corporation. I think there is a lot in that idea, for then we eliminate problems in regard to excess profits, trickery and duplicity. I believe that idea might well develop and, indeed, be adopted as the general policy by which these war department stores are finaly disposed of.
One very important point which has not been touched upon is, What will the Government do with their ammunition, shells, and all these weapons of war? After the last war they were disposed of to certain other countries, to South America, to the Far East, to the Balkans. Do not ever let us fall into that error again. It merely means undoing the very progress we are trying to make in building up a world in which there will be no war. Once we let loose these lethal weapons and their ammunition, we are giving moral encouragement to the nations to which we sell to break the international law which we hope to set up and see kept by all nations after this war.

Mr. Jewson: I do not propose to discuss the whole White Paper at length but to raise one point of particular interest. I am very glad we were told that pounds, shillings and pence are not to be the only consideration of the Government in realising the goods which remain on their hands at the end of the war. I think that is perfectly right. In the ninth paragraph we read that some of the surplus may be allocated to relief and rehabilitation of liberated territories, meaning, of course, territories on the Continent of Europe rather than here at home. I was a little surprised at the storm which suddenly sprang up when my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Dr. R. Thomas) suggested that we might look at home as well. But I am encouraged by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) was allowed to have his say without a similar interruption. I think perhaps that in the first instance the matter was a little misunderstood.


Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, I have no personal interest in the hotel trade, but everyone is aware that catering for holiday-makers is one of the chief occupations of Great Yarmouth. It is for that reason that I want to put in a similar plea to that which has been put in for holiday camps. I do not ask so much as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, for I do not intend to mention the prices at which furniture shall be sold, but the important point is that if we want holidays—and we shall want them for a large number of people as quickly as we can arrange them after the war—we must have hotels and boarding houses to which they can go. Apart from the consumer interest, there is also the other side of the question. Surely the coastal towns in the Defence Areas are entitled to be included in the relief and rehabilitation schemes because of the special way in which they have suffered during the war. I therefore ask the President to give very special consideration to the supplying of furniture and other necessaries to hotel and boarding-house keepers at the end of the war. If there is a large quantity of furniture and other things available, as I hope there will be, I hope he will see that the people I have mentioned will have first claim upon them. I hope he will consult the Hotel Keepers' Association—I am not quite sure if that is the right name—and see that arrangements are made for these things to be placed at their disposal as soon as the war is over in order that they may be able to rehabilitate their businesses, and that places such as that which I represent shall have a chance of gettting on their feet again after the long period in which they have suffered all sorts of disabilities. That is the only point I want to raise; I will leave other people to criticise the White Paper.

Mr. Shephard: Five minutes will be ample time in which to make the points I have in mind. We on this side of the Committee are just as concerned as anyone else to see that there is no profiteering in the sale of these surplus Government stocks. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said that these stocks should be sold without a profit. That, to me, envisages the Government setting a vast organisation all over the country to compete with ordinary retailers. Furthermore, even if this was done I am not at all satisfied that the prices at

which they would be able to sell these stocks would be any lower, even after the normal trading channels had put on a reasonable profit. I think we can safely leave the matter of profit to the Central Price Regulation Committees which, in my experience—and I have seen some of their work—have limited profits, or at least have seen that there has been no question of profiteering where they have had the handling of these matters.
It was mentioned earlier in the Debate that Government Departments themselves would have a claim to any of the goods they required, and there was particular reference to the Colonies. I want to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to Malaya, and the attention of the Secretary of State for India and Burma to Burma, because both those countries will want some priority. Both will have been devastated completely by the Japanese, and I ask them to keep these two countries in mind when they are seeking to apportion their requirements. With regard to buildings, as most hon. Members know, the Government have taken over a tremendous number of factories and warehouses, in which they have stored war materials. These materials, which are the subject, presumably, of this White Paper, will have to be removed from that storage before the owners of those premises can resume their normal activities. About twelve months ago I, in common with other industrialists, received a long questionnaire from the Board of Trade dealing with the post-war requirements of industry, and I found it was impossible to fill it up with any satisfaction because I did not know when my own requisitioned premises would be restored to me, or when ample raw materials would be forthcoming. Therefore, I ask the President to keep this point in mind. It is quite impossible for industrialists to plan for the future unless they know exactly the Government's intentions with regard to the early release of these warehouses and factories.
One last point. I understood from the President that most of these factories would be leased. I am in full agreement with that, but I would point out that many will require considerable sums of money to be spent on them to make them suitable for whatever type of industry they will be used for, and I think that if a lessee has had to spend a large sum of money on making premises suitable he should be


given the option of purchase after a certain number of years. Many of these Government buildings are of enormous size and I hope that those in the vicinity of large towns will under no circumstances be leased to one firm. I think they lend themselves very well to being split into small 5,000 or 10,000 feet areas, so that the smaller industrialists will have a chance of having adequate premises when the war is over.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: As there is not much time, I will come straight away to the point I wish to make. Almost every Member, including the President of the Board of Trade, has commented in some way or other on the necessity for preventing profiteering in the disposal of Government surplus stores. It is the main point of this White Paper. In his speech the President was interrupted, when he was talking of profit, by an hon. Member opposite who suggested that it would be better to call it "reasonable remuneration." It strikes me that hon. Members opposite regard profit in rather the same way as the girl in the story regarded her illegitimate child. She excused it on the ground that it was only a very small one, and it seems to me that profit is being excused on the ground that it is only very small. So I want to address my remarks to a consideration of what is reasonable remuneration in the disposal of these goods. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) suggested that a fixed percentage, which he did not name, should be added on to the fair price. If he accepts that, 1,000 pairs of boots at £1 each is exactly the same thing as 500 pairs at £2 each, so that a man could get the same reasonable remuneration for distributing just half the amount of goods. That illustrates the difficulty of profit as a means of giving reasonable remuneration.
Why can we not see if we can pay the people who devote their time and energy to the orderly distribution of these products in accordance with the quantity and quality of the work they are doing and the responsibility they are taking? It would not appear to me to be a very difficult thing for the community to decide, as between one man and another, what should be the relative levels of income. I once asked an acquaintance who had spent a considerable number of years in

Russia and who, as the result of a rather sensational trial, had been deported, what was the ratio in a large factory between the wages of the man who controlled the whole of it and the man who swept the floor, and he said, "Somewhere in the region of one to three." The boss got three times as much as the man who swept the floor. I do not suggest that we. should apply that exact ratio. I am not worried whether it should be one to five or one to ten, but we ought to try to get some reason in the matter of remuneration between the man in the office who arranges for the disposal of the goods and the man who goes down a mine to cut coal. I think it follows that the present principle, which is that nothing can be done in industry unless there is a profit, a profit which may be drawn by a person not actively engaged in distribution or industry at all, but who happens to own a proportion of the shares in the concern, is a principle that can never produce a fair distribution of income among the people. It seems to me that those who have asked that we shall have reasonable remuneration for work done are rejecting one of the principles on which industry runs to-day. The Committee may doubt my authority to speak on behalf of industry because I am not an industrialist, so I should like to quote the hon. Member for Pudsey and Ottley (Sir G. Gibson), who said:
At the moment industry is actuated by patriotism and the desire to see this war brought to a successful conclusion. When the war is finished, the incentive in industry will be profit, because anybody who goes into industry knows that success in industry is measured by the profit one makes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1944; vol. 401, C. 263.]
I do not think the British people are prepared to measure the success of industry by the profit that it makes. I think they want a means whereby the success of industry can be measured by the sum total of human happiness that it produces, giving jobs at reasonable wages and producing the goods we want. Therefore, I do not put much store on this Paper. The President of the Board of Trade said that to some extent it left things open for the decision of the future. I heartily agree with him in that. He spoke of other Governments and other Parliaments deciding this matter, and I look forward to the day when he and the party of which he is a Member are free to settle


these problems in accordance with the principles in which they believe.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): We have had a Debate on one of the most difficult, as well as one of the most interesting, subjects that occupy us to-day. There has been a considerable measure of agreement, with one or two rather notable exceptions. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) said I must have overlain the President of the Board of Trade. If that is so, he has come up smiling after the ordeal. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) opened the Debate with a good slashing attack, and I should like to deal with two specific questions that he asked me. Firstly about holiday camps, one at Filey and the other at Carnarvon. I have not been able to get information about the one at Carnarvon, but I will communicate with him. The one at Filey was built by Butlins on their own land and it was agreed that they should re-purchase it at half its cost. Therefore I do not think there was any jiggery-pokery about that deal at all. It was merely the fulfilment of an agreement.

Major Sir Goronwy Owen: The same considerations apply to the site at Carnarvon. Butlins Limited sold the land for a nominal sum to the Admiralty and were commissioned to rebuild the camp and repurchase it at a fixed price.

Captain Waterhouse: I thought that was probably the case but, not having been able to check it up, I could not give the hon. Member the assurance. The hon. Member also asked about a mountain of ore at Sierra Leone. The facts are that the company before the war was producing 250,000 tons of iron ore per annum. The Ministry of Supply assisted them by paying for the machinery to increase the ore supplied, to the value of £290,000, as a result of which the production of the company has gone up to 400,000 tons a year, all of which is being taken up and is the property of the Ministry of Supply. So that this mountain is possibly nearer a mole-hill in its effect. The ore is going steadily into consumption.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I know the difficulty about iron ore but there are large deposits still in the ground. What I am asking

is this. Seeing that the Ministry of Supply will be responsible for this large capital outlay, what is to become of it after the war?

Captain Waterhouse: What will become of the capital invested in machinery?

Mr. Smith: Yes.

Captain Waterhouse: I take it it will be dealt with as other machinery which has been supplied to so many factories or will be subject to the disposal arrangements which are now being worked out. The Committee might be interested to be reminded of the exact working of the Disposal Board after the last war. My hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) was actively concerned in it. The Disposal Board was set up in January, 1919. It took over the work of the Surplus Government Property Disposal Board under the Ministry of Munitions. This is relevant because the suggestion has been made in certain quarters that we should have a similar board now. The Disposal Board, in fact, outlived the Ministry of Munitions and was abolished in March, 1924.
Various estimates have been made in the Debate of the possible amount with which we may have to deal, and it has been suggested that we should already have an accurate inventory, just as any business would have, so that we might look up a large ledger and say what the stocks of raw materials, consumable goods and all the rest of it are. If hon. Members will reflect, they will see the insuperable difficulties of having such a record in the case of Government stocks and munitions. Where, however, records can be kept they are kept, and because no records have been quoted and no figures given hon. Members must not assume that no figures at all exist. The Disposal Board in the last war sold altogether £642,000,000 worth of various commodities and assets. To give the Committee an idea of the extreme intricacy of what has been referred to as the cataloguing of these goods, Sir Daniel Neylan stated that he had divided his stocks into 350,000 different store items. When we mention in the White Paper four things which are not very similar, we are giving but a small indication of the diversity of the stores which will arise for disposal. Out of this £642,000,000, raw materials


accounted for about £320,000,000, other sales at home £232,000,000, and other sales abroad about £83,000,000.
The general system started in the same way as we do now. That is to say, the Government Departments had to collect their various stores. In those days, I understand, each Government Department, having collected its own stores, handed them over to the Disposal Board, who were acting under the Ministry of Munitions. Now we propose to have for each class of goods one Government Department which will collect the stores from all Government Departments, catalogue them, and hand the list over to the Department which will conduct the negotiations of sale. To that extent our system is a simplification.

Mr. Bowles: I thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said that the Department which bought the stores would sell them.

Captain Waterhouse: I will come to that point later. The principle adopted by the Disposals Board—and here I am quoting the words of the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, Mr. Hope, who later occupied the chair of this Committee—was
to test the market, find the best price and then take any good offer approximating to the market price.
That principle of the Disposal Board may be paraphrased into, "Sale to the best immediate advantage of the taxpayer." I suggest that we might take as the principle underlying this White Paper, "Sale for the real interest of the taxpayer which will generally be best served by the ultimate benefit of productive industry as a whole."
I believe the Committee will appreciate that our proposal is better than the original one, and, indeed, it ought to be, for the Disposal Board started completely in the dark and were sailing in an uncharted sea. We have their painful experience to guide us. Do not let me be taken as condemning the work of that Board. They did a great and difficult work, and although there were many shortcomings, there were many great achievements. Their task was far more difficult than ours, in one particular, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, for they had no system of price control and regulation. They had to hold the price

as best they could and arrive at a price as best they could, and it would be very hard to blame them, working with the poor tools they then had in their hands, if in many cases prices soared to the grave disadvantage of the people of the country as a whole.
The methods we propose to adopt are set out in the White Paper and have already been referred to in detail by my right hon. Friend. If I may go through them again, I think I can in that way best answer some of the questions that have been put. One question that has been raised by many Members is what is being done to ensure that we do not have the abuse of the resale of goods back again for Government purposes. This particularly applied to furnishings, and it was asked why a Government Department could not get furniture from the store. In so far as that can be done it will be done. Arrangements are being made to go through the stores and to ensure that anything which can be used for public purposes will be so used and will not go as surplus. Again, relief and rehabilitation will take great quantities of stores from the market before they are declared surplus.
Next, we come to the operative machinery section of the White Paper, paragraph 17. The collecting and cataloguing is to be done by one Department, which is normally the Department which has bought most extensively from the trade during the war. In many instances many Departments have bought from the same industry. Therefore, it is necessary to decide which has the larger interest. Normally, that will be the Ministry of Supply and they will be responsible for the collecting and cataloguing. The goods, when collected and catalogued, will be passed along to another Department, normally the Board of Trade, who will carry out negotiations for their sale. Why has this system been adopted rather than that of letting the first Department do the whole thing or, the other possibility, setting up another Disposal Board? In this war Government Departments—the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Works and others—have been in close touch with the distributive side of industry. In the last war Government Departments were in fairly close touch with the producing side, but not with the distributing side. We are now in close contact with the distributing side, and it


would be the height of unwisdom to throw away all the departmental experience we have got, scrap the departmental organisation and to set up another. Hon. Members may say that the staffs could be transferred, but why transfer them? Is it not far better to work through an organisation which is in existence, which is doing good work now and working smoothly, rather than to move the organisation, reorganise it to a certain extent, and run the risk, as must always happen with large organisations, of getting creaking wheels and less smooth operation?

Sir H. Webbe: I find it a little difficult to reconcile what my right hon. and gallant Friend has said with paragraph 17 of the White Paper, which says that there will be one Department designated as the disposal Department, and that usually the Ministry of Supply will be the disposal Department and will arrange for the sorting, assembling and so on and for making the contracts of sale. I rather understood from what my right hon. and gallant Friend said that the actual opening up of the channels of disposal and, therefore, the contracts of sale, will rest with the Board of Trade because of their closer contact with the distributive trades.

Captain Waterhouse: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point, because clearly there is a possibility of misunderstanding. The making of a contract, in that sense, is the actual physical making of the contract, such as the giving of instructions to the solicitor for drawing it up. The details of the contract will have been worked out by the Department which has done the negotiation.
Various hon. Members, for instance my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster), complained that there is too much generalisation, and asked whether we were really "getting down to brass tacks." I can assure him that this charge is ill-founded and that we are
"getting down to brass tacks." We have already made approaches, as he may know from his industrial contacts, to a very large number of trades. I can give the Committee a very long list, but I will take five or six miscellaneous things, some small and some large, such as bedding, typewriters, cinema equipment, furniture and textiles, both wool and cotton. In a

number of heavy industries we have also got agreement in principle to the formation of a non-profit-making corporation and the organisations themselves have submitted proposals in the form of memoranda. I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is real progress and that we are getting somewhere.

Sir G. Schuster: I do not want to interrupt my right hon. and gallant Friend, but I do want to get this point clear. I appreciate that a great deal of detailed work has been going on, but the point I am always trying to make is that all these details have to be fitted into some sort of national plan. I want to know from the Board of Trade, which I understand is to carry the leading industrial responsibility for the future, whether it is making its own survey of the whole of the industrial structure to see that these various parts fit into a proper plan.

Captain Waterhouse: On this White Paper we are not discussing the whole industrial structure. That is a much wider problem. This paper deals with a comparatively small part of that problem. I quite agree with my hon. Friend, however, and I must ask the Committee to believe that we are doing our best to see that the arrangements we are now making will fit into the general picture of this country, as the Government see it, after the war.
Some questions have been asked about certain specific industries. My hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) raised the subject of machine tools. He realises, of course, that some of the machine tools now in use are specialised for munitions and will have no post-war value at all, but the vast bulk of them have some general use. Some of these will presumably be left in the factories and disposed of with the factories. I can assure him that we have definitely in mind the desirability of persuading engineering shops and repair shops of all sorts to take the opportunity of throwing out their old machinery and of putting in plant which we shall be able to offer at a fair price, thereby increasing their general competitive power, both in the home market and, what is far more important, in the foreign market as well.

Mr. Hammersley: Does that mean that, when machine tools are known now to be surplus, a list of those machine tools is


circulated to the trade so that, if the trade require them, the tools can become available?

Captain Waterhouse: No, I do not want my hon. Friend to think that I mean that. I do not know what arrangements the Minister of Supply may be applying to the immediate disposal of machine tools, but I should have thought that machine tools for disposal now were very few and far between. I am speaking of the surplus which will arise when the war is over.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) spoke of his holiday camp and of the furniture which had been requisitioned therefrom and for which he was to get only the 1939 price. This 1939 price, I agree with him, is a very vexed question. It does not only arise in connection with furniture, but also, as he knows, under the town and country planning legislation which we had before us a little time ago. I do not know whether he would adopt the same critical attitude towards those proposals for compensation as he does in regard to his own furniture.

Mr. W. J. Brown: It would be out of Order for me to reply fully to that point, but perhaps I may say in a general way that consistency is not always the hallmark of great minds, and that inconsistency is sometimes characteristic of great ones. I think it would be found that what I have said in connection with town and country planning will not be out of harmony with what I have said in connection with the present Debate. May I add that this is not my holiday camp that I am talking about? I find I am credited in the smoking room already with the possession of £10,000 worth of furniture.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Did not the hon. Member say "my holiday camp?"

Mr. Brown: It is not my camp. I was speaking of the general industry.

Captain Waterhouse: I was under the impression that it was a little private venture of the hon. Member, and if it had been, let me say that I should not have thought any worse of him for that. The Government have promised to give hotel keepers and others whose furniture has been requisitioned the right to buy back similar articles from Government surplus stocks at the prices paid by the Govern-

ment, less the ordinary depreciation for wear and tear. I hope that will be of some use to the hon. Member.
Now I should like to deal with one of the most vexed questions of all, that of factories. One of our major aims is to avoid speculation. But we have been asked, "Why sell at all? Why not let this property remain Government property? Why hand back factories, for example, now being run by the Government, to private occupation?" I do not know that we intend to do that. Practically all these factories are being run by private enterprise.

Mr. Edgar Granville: They have an option on them.

Captain Waterhouse: The factories were built by the Government and are being run by private firms. My hon. Friend says that they have an option. Where there is an option, quite definitely it is not the Government's intention to go back upon it. That option must stand, because it is in the agreement. The political issue is not quite such a vexed one as it might at first appear, because during the war it has been not the Government who have been the main producers, but private enterprise. The Government have taken private firms as their agents and it is private firms that are producing in the factories of which I am speaking, with the exception of some score or 30 Royal Ordnance factories, which come into a different category altogether.

Mr. Bowles: Suppose the Government provided a firm like Vickers at Weybridge with extra floor space for production on Government account; will that extra accommodation after the war be the Government's or Vickers'?

Captain Waterhouse: I really cannot make a definite statement, because circumstances in each case will vary tremendously. Sometimes the building work will have been done principally by Vickers, and the factory will be useful to Vickers after the war. Sometimes the extension will be nothing but a nuisance, and will have to be pulled down. Clearly, one cannot lay down a general rule in that case. Manufacturing enterprises may be asked to pay for work which has been done during the war, and which will be useful to them after the war, but it would be very hard to ask them to pay anything like market


prices for work which, though valuable in itself, was not valuable for their particular trade. A certain confusion has arisen, or has been made to arise, on the question of margins and profits. My right hon. Friend said quite clearly——

Mr. E. J. Williams: Could the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what the Government propose to do with the 20 or 30 Government factories?

Captain Waterhouse: The hon. Member is referring to the Royal Ordnance factories? They were not in my mind when I was answering that particular question. Many of the Royal Ordnance factories will remain Government property, and it has already been laid down in the Debate on the White Paper that there will be selection, according to local needs, of which factories will so remain and which shall be disposed of.

Mr. Williams: Has any selection been made so far?

Captain Waterhouse: No, it has not yet been possible. I will return to that for a moment or two if I have time. There has been some confusion, I think, on the question of profit and margins. It has been asked, "Why should any profit be made out of the disposal of Government stores?" Exactly what do hon. Members mean by "profit" in that sense? If the wholesaler or retailer is allowed to add 15 per cent. or 30 per cent., as the case may be, to the price he pays, do not let it be assumed for one moment, as has already been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall that this is profit. This contains an element of profit, but it pays for the service the trader is rendering by distributing these goods throughout the whole country. One does not expect a man, when he is working for the Government, to work for a bare subsistence wage. So one does not expect a trader to work for bare cost. He has a right to his margin, which goes to meet his overheads and a wage on his capital, in the same way as a workman has a right to his wages for his work for the Government. It is quite definitely our object to limit these margins and so limit the profits. To quote again from the Debate of 1920, Mr. Hope said:
Attempts have been made to lower prices, but it was soon found that the benefit did not go to the consumer.

Prices soared. Now we intend either to have a definite statutory selling price, or defined margins at each stage which will be laid down under our Orders. The House is very often critical of many Orders which my right hon. Friend lays on the Table, though this criticism is generally proved not to be justified, but criticism of price control, I am glad to say, is very rarely made at all.
Questions have been asked about sales abroad, Allied sales here and Allied sales overseas. Clearly these all intimately affect the problem with which we are dealing. Lend-lease goods, mutual aid goods, all these must be matters of negotiation, and I cannot pretend that negotiation has yet got very far. Negotiation will have to take place with the Dominion Governments and Allied Governments, but I can at least give an assurance that as far as our property abroad is concerned its sale will not cut across the general principles which we are laying down to-day. The Government have every intention of making arrangements with the Dominions and Allied Governments to bring policies into line, because, after all, their interest is directly the same as ours. They also must dispose of their stocks with as little dislocation to world trade as possible. May I finally say a word or two in rather greater detail about the factories?

Mr. Hammersley: Before my right hon. and gallant Friend does so will he deal with the point I made about the trade associations and narrowness?

Captain Waterhouse: I am glad my hon. Friend reminded me of that. We have said quite definitely, that we will negotiate through the existing trade channels, and my hon. Friend is nervous lest that should be too exclusive. Let me therefore explain that when we say that, we mean that we intend to prevent the outside speculator butting in to any of these trades and trying to take the cream off the milk. We do not at all intend to stop any bona fide entrant to the trade from coming in and starting up, if there is every indication that he is going to be a long-term trader as distinct from a short-term speculator. I think that is the answer.
If I may repeat the words of my right hon. Friend, which cannot be too much stressed, as regards Government factories, our normal procedure will be by


way of lease for a suitable term, but the possibility of a sale out and out in appropriate cases must not be excluded. I have been asked how factories are to be allocated. Allocation will be a Government decision. The Government Departments concerned will be consulted, and the President of the Board of Trade will be answerable in the House for allocations so made.

Sir G. Owen: There is just one point I should like to make. Is it the policy of the Government to try to persuade people who are now working Government factories in certain areas, to shift their factories after the war to congested areas like South Wales?

Captain Waterhouse: My hon. and gallant Friend will remember we had a Debate on that very subject only a fortnight or three weeks ago. It is not really relevant to this particular matter and I hope he will forgive me for not being drawn away on that. There are other points with which I wish to deal. Allocation of theses factories will where possible be made forthwith. There is no question of waiting until after the war for all allocations. I believe that will relieve industrialists who wish to make their arrangements as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) asked about security of tenure. It is in our mind to give a 10 years' lease of these factories in the first instance, but of course there will be cases where that will not be nearly sufficient to enable dispositions to be made. Such cases would come within the proviso of the quotation from my right hon. Friend I have just read—an appropriate case for an out and out sale.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham said that in the case of large factories leases might be unsatisfactory sometimes. It is for that very reason that my right hon. Friend—I again stress this—has put in these words that in appropriate cases sale must not be excluded, though the other will be the normal practice. I hope I have done something to remove the worst fears of some opponents of this measure. I hope they will take my assurance that the President of the Board of Trade and I did not have an angry wrangle about this White Paper at all. We found ourselves, on this as on most other subjects,

in happy accord. It is in that spirit of accord, arising from a sense of what we believe to be best for the ultimate progress of this country, that I submit these proposals to the Committee, and I hope they may be acceptable.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That a further sum, not exceeding £83,981,473, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the charges for the following Departments connected with the Disposal of Surplus Government Property for the yeas ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, namely:

£


Class VI., Vote 1, Board of Trade
1,448,833


Class X, Vote 12, Ministry of Supply
90


Class VII., Vote 4, Ministry of Works
4,162,270


Class X., Vote 16, Ministry of Works (War Services)
90


Class X., Vote 2, Ministry of Aircraft Production
90


Revenue Departments, Vote 3, Post Office
78,370,000


Navy Estimates, Vote 12, Admiralty Office
100



£83,981,473

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, to put severally the Questions, "That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates and the total Amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, the Navy, Army and Air Services be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates":—

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1944.

CLASS 1

"That a sum, not exceeding £2,315,814, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class 1 of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. House of Lords Offices
39,254


2. House of Commons
334,821


3. Registration of Electors
13,000


4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
749,577


5. Privy Council Office
15,324


6. Privy Seal Office
5,211


7. Charity Commission
24,079


8. Civil Service Commission
11,500


9. Exchequer and Audit Department
180,200







£


10. Friendly Societies' Deficiency
1,874


12. Government Actuary
12,027


12. Government Chemist
72,762


13. Government Hospitality
9,000


14. The Mint
90


15. National Debt Office
5,152


16. National Savings Committee
379,834


17. Public Record Office
31,176


18. Public Works Loan Commission
14,118


19. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
22,129


20. Royal Commissions, etc.
33,500


21. Miscellaneous Expenses
52,071


22. Secret Service
90


23. Tithe Redemption Commission
90


24. Ministry of Town and Country Planning
152,616


25. Scottish Home Department
149,949


26. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
6,370



£2,315,814

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS II

"That a sum, not exceeding £14,693,372, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Foreign Office
1,387,447


2. Diplomatic and Consular Establishments, etc. (including a Supplementary Sum of £22,000)
4,437,100


3. League of Nations
510


4. Dominions Office
70,685


5. Dominions Services
240,220


6. Oversea Settlement
90


7. Colonial Office
263,300


8. Colonial and Middle Eastern Services (including a Supplementary sum of £1,800,000)
5,143,722


9. Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)
1,458,000


10. Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)
109,450


11. India and Burma Services
1,497,706


12. Imperial War Graves Commission
85,142



£14,693,372"

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS III

"That a sum, not exceeding £10,128,722, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1. Home Office
1,096,965


2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
85,350


3. Police, England and Wales
4,897,450


4. Prisons, England and Wales
1,257,598


5. Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales
406,900


6. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
90


7. County Courts
334,938


8. Land Registry
30,540


9. Public Trustee
15,236


10. Law Charges
142,925


11. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
15,847


Scotland


12. Police
948,660


13. Prisons
128,218


14. Approved Schools, etc.
76,900


15. Scottish Land Court
4,222


16. Law Charges and Courts of Law
63,175


17. Register House, Edinburgh
11,392


Ireland


18. Northern Ireland Services
2,877


19. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
12,553


20. Irish Land Purchase Services
596,886



£10,128,722"

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV

"That a sum, not exceeding £55,578,963, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Board of Education
42,898,150


2. British Museum
97,144


3. British Museum (Natural History)
63,307


4. Imperial War Museum
7,927


5. London Museum
2,954


6. National Gallery
24,078


7. National Maritime Museum
7,269


8. National Portrait Gallery
7,140


9. Wallace Collection
8,185


10. Scientific Investigation, etc.
299,147


11. Universities and Colleges, Great Britain
1,149,000


12. Broadcasting
5,000,000


Scotland


13. Public Education (including a Supplementary sum of £233,750)
6,002,359


14. National Galleries
10,280


15. National Library
2,023



£55,578,963"

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS V

"That a sum, not exceeding £116,651,549, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Ministry of Health
18,293,203


2. Board of Control
146,734


3. Registrar-General's Office
204,745


4. National Insurance Audit Department
100,240


5. Friendly Societies Registry
30,490


6. Old Age Pensions
36,000,000


7. Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions
16,525,000


9. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
1,220,000


10. Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales)
90


11. Assistance Board
3,580,000


12. Special Areas Fund
450,000


13. Financial Assistance in Special and Other Areas
17,800


14. Supplementary Pensions
36,930,000


Scotland


15. Department of Health
3,101,823


16. Board of Control
16,479


17. Registrar-General's Office
34,855


18. Commissioner for Special Areas
90



£116,651,549"

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI

"That a sum, not exceeding £12,467,117, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


2. Mercantile Marine Services
1,124,151


3. Department of Overseas Trade
212,430


4. Export Credits
90


5. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
25,516


6. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
2,733,959


7. Surveys of Great Britain, etc.
558,030


8. Forestry Commission
500,000


9. Roads, etc.
5,324,900


10. Miscellaneous Transport Services
28,933


11. Development Fund
427,000


12. Development Grants
294,000


13. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
683,111


14. State Management Districts
90






£


15. Clearing Officers
90


Scotland


16. Department of Agriculture
534,560


17. Fisheries
20,257



£12,467,117

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII

"That a sum, not exceeding £5,546,053, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Houses of Parliament Buildings
34,250


2. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
73,580


3. Osborne
17,150


5. Miscellaneous Works Services (including a Supplementary sum of £200,000)
311,835


6. Public Buildings Overseas
78,355


7. Royal Palaces
74,750


8. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
146,800


9. Rates on Government Property
2,333,098


10. Stationery and Printing
2,441,430


11. Peterhead Harbour
7,000


12. Works and Buildings in Ireland
27,805



£5,546,053

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

"That a sum, not exceeding £23,925,240, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
134,230


2. Ministry of Pensions
21,561,000


3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
730,000


4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances (including a Supplementary sum of £10)
1,500,010



£23,925,240"

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX

"That a sum, not exceeding £34,142,859, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Ex-


penditure in respect of the services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
28,518,000


2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
5,624,859



£34,142,859"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class X

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,440, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (War Services)
90


3. Ministry of Economic Warfare
90


4. Ministry of Food
90


5. Ministry of Fuel and Power
90


6. Ministry of Health (War Services)
90


7. Ministry of Home Security
90


8. Ministry of Information
90


9. Ministry of Labour and National Service (War Services)
90


10. Postal and Telegraph Censorship Department
90


11. Ministry of Production
90


13. War Damage (Business and Private Chattels)
90


14. War Damage Commission
90


15. Ministry of War Transport
90


17. Department of Agriculture for Scotland (War Services)
90


18. Department of Health for Scotland (War Services)
90


19. Scottish Home Department (War Services)
90



£1,440

Question put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1944

"That a sum, not exceeding £13,783,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:



£


1. Customs and Excise
…
4,339,100


2. Inland Revenue
…
9,444,200




£13,783,300"

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1944

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,600, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:



£


2. Victualling and Clothing for the Navy
100


3. Medical Establishments and Services
100


4. Civilians employed on Fleet Services
100


5. Educational Services
100


6. Scientific Services
100


7. Royal Naval Reserves
100


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:


Section I.—Personnel
100


Section II.—Matériel
100


Section III.—Contract Work
100


9. Naval Armaments
100


10. Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad
100


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
100


13. Non - Effective Services (Naval and Marine)— Officers
100


14. Non - Effective Services (Naval and Marine)— Men
100


15. Civil Superannuation, Allowances and Gratuities
100


16. Merchant Shipbuilding, etc.
100



£1,600"

Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1944

"That a sum, not exceeding £1,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:



£


3. Medical Services
100


4. Educational Establishments
100


5. Quartering and Movements
100


6. Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts
100


7. Clothing
100


8. General Stores
100


9. Warlike Stores
100


10. Works, Buildings and Lands
100


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
100


12. War Office
100


13. Half-Pay, Retired Pay and other Non - Effective Charges for Officers
100

14. Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men and others
100


15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Gratuities
100



£1,300"

Question put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1944

"That a sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:



£


2. Quartering, Non-Technical Stores, Supplies and Transportation
100


3. Technical and Warlike Stores
100


4. Works, Buildings and Lands
100


5. Medical Services
100


6. Educational Services
100


7. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces
100


9. Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
100


10. Air Ministry
100


11. Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non - Effective Services
100



£900"

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

Resolved:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1943, the sum of £22,738 5s. 6d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Resolved:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1945, the sum of £1,395,929,702 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

VALIDATION OF WAR-TIME LEASES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill comes before the House in the following circumstances. Early this year the Court of Appeal decided that a lease made for the duration of the war was invalid, the term of the duration of the war being uncertain. It is, I think, worth noting that the parties could have secured what they obviously intended by a valid document, which would have been upheld in the courts. That is to say, this was not held to be invalid because it was against public policy or because there was something wrong about it; it was merely that the parties had failed to adopt the form which would have made the agreement legally valid. If the parties had, in their agreement, said that A.B., the landlord, would let the house to C.D., the tenant, for a fixed period, 10 years, 20 years, or 999 years, subject to the right in either party, landlord or tenant, to determine the lease at the end of the war, that would have been a valid agreement.
That would have been exactly what they wished and intended to do—to enter into a contract which could come to an end, as desired by either side, at the end of the war. If a tenant wanted to stay on and the landlord was content, that could happen under any lease. They wanted to create a contract which could be brought to an end by either party at the end of the war. The Court of Appeal decided that, if they adopted the form which had been adopted in that case, simply saying "These premises are let for the duration of the war," it was invalid.
Although, as I have said, this result could have been attained, and no doubt in many cases has been attained, by a form which is valid, the result of our inquiries has led us to the conclusion that a number of leases have been entered into in the form which has been declared invalid in the case to which I have referred, and it seems to us right that we should ask Parliament to validate them. It is quite plain what the parties intended. One intended to take and the other intended to grant a lease for the duration of the war. Owing, perhaps, to some uncer-


tainty as to the law, and, no doubt, in certain other cases, to not consulting solicitors and getting the form right, there are a number of cases in which the form is defective, and it seems to us right that the bargain which the parties clearly intended to enter into should be validated. I answered a Question on 13th June to say that the Government intended to do that, and gave everybody notice that it was going to be done.
I think that, with that preliminary, I can come now to the general scheme of the Bill, which is simple, but which does raise a number of questions. I will go through its Clauses to tell the House what they provide. Clause 1, Sub-section (1), is the main validating provision, and it says that these leases are to take effect as if they were agreements for ten years, subject to a right, either by landlord or tenant, to determine the tenancy at the end of the war. I might point out, in case there may be apprehension on this point in some circles, that we have used words which keep such agreements as these as short tenancies for the purpose of the War Damage Act. It is a technical point, but I know solicitors have been concerned whether that was so, and I thought it might be useful to state it. The proviso deals with two small matters. There may be a case where a landlord found himself bound for the duration of the war, but was willing that the tenant should give a month's notice, or whatever it might be, at any time. We leave that bargain as it is. We operate on the duration of the war, on which the landlord was bound, but we do not, of course, take away from the tenant the right which the landlord gave him to terminate the lease at any time.
Under Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 we provide release unless there is express provision that it should be subject to a month's notice at the end of the war. Paragraph (b) preserves any special express provision there may be in the agreement for longer or shorter notice than one month. Proviso (c) deals with what is very likely to exist—an agricultural tenancy for the duration of the war—and it preserves the principle laid down under the Agricultural Holdings Act that the lease can only be terminated by 12 months' notice, which is right in an agricultural lease expiring at the end of the tenancy year.
Sub-section (2) does this. The expression in the lease which came before the Court of Appeal was, I think, "duration, of the war," but, of course, there are other expressions which have been used with the intention of producing the same result. Some documents may refer to hostilities and some may refer to the emergency, and it would, obviously, be silly to pick out documents which used the expression "duration of the war," and validate them, and leave other documents which used similar expressions invalid under the court's decision, and the object of Subsection (2) is to make it clear that we bring in all these expressions which have been used for this period.
I am going rather into detail, but it is useful that I should, because a number of people are affected and have grievances in one form or another. Sub-section (3) will deal with this class of case. We find that some people entered into agreements for leases for five years or the duration of the war, whichever is the shorter, and some agreements were for five years or the duration of the war, whichever is the longer. Our main purpose here is to interfere as little as possible with what the parties have agreed to, and if they had agreed to a period of five years or the duration of the war, whichever is the shorter, and the war came to an end, the lease would be terminated because the period had expired. On the other hand, if the lease was for five years or the duration of the war, whichever is the longer, and the war lasts longer than five years, then, of course, it will have to operate. I will not, however, go into all these various points which have been brought to our attention.
Clause 2 deals with the problem—on which I have had one or two questions in this House—of how we are to say when these leases are to come to an end. What is the end of the war? What is the duration of the war? Should it be dealt with, as last time, by Order in Council, or should it be left in uncertainty, with no one quite knowing what the courts will construe it as meaning? I have myself very little doubt that the courts would construe the duration of the war as meaning what we might call the whole war. They would not say, because Italy had gone out, that, therefore, the thing came to an end. They would not, I think, if Germany had gone out, say that it came to an end. They would say that the war


means the war in which His Majesty is engaged against his enemies and would therefore apply it to the whole war. I think they would also say that they could only have regard to the existence of a state of war in the technical sense, that is to say, they must regard the war as continuing until things happen this time, as they did before, which is not at all certain, and there has been an exchange and ratification of peace treaties. That, in the eyes of international law, is when a state of war comes to an end. We feel that that later date might well be a very considerable period of time after that which documents such as these have in mind. We therefore think—and we shall not please everybody—that the best procedure is, first of all, to have a presumption that the war means the whole war. That presumption could, of course, be rebutted. If people can point to something in the lease which indicates that the war there means the war with Germany, or is connected with bombing or the blackout or something of that sort, the presumption can be rebutted.

Mr. Silverman: Must it be in the lease?

The Attorney-General: It must either be in the lease, or be in evidence that the court would accept as admissible in considering this matter. That is to say, as far as this matter is concerned we leave the parties very much where they would be if the whole thing were left to the courts. If you can show, either from what is in the lease or from the date of the lease, or that there are any circumstances which the court would admit as evidence, that it is the European war rather than the whole war, the presumption is adopted and the lease will be for the period of the war in Europe.

Mr. Silverman: Is not the normal rule that the court will only look at the documents?

The Attorney-General: The normal rule is in some cases, as my hon. Friend knows, that you can bring intrinsic evidence, and we have used the expression "admissible evidence" so that parties can bring before the court exactly the evidence they could under the ordinary rules. We take power, therefore, to fix a date by Order in Council which will determine the end of the war, when we are concerned with the whole war, the

war in all theatres, and what is the date of the end of war, when we are concerned with the war in Europe or the war in any particular theatre. He would be a bold man—and it is unnecessary and would be wrong for me—to attempt to lay down what exact considerations we would be prepared to consider when the time comes for issuing these Orders in Council. We are dealing with agreements where parties have used an expression which is undoubtedly of some moment. I say, we shall not please everybody, but I think that we get closest to the intention if one takes a date some time after the cessation of active warfare but probably some time before the ratification of peace treaties or whatever is equivalent in the post-war settlement with our enemies. I do not think it would be right to regard the phase "the war" or "hostilities" as ceasing immediately the guns cease going off. Often after guns cease going off, they start going off again, and the cessation of the guns will be followed by a very full-scale occupation of territories. In this conception of the termination of the war, many elements enter. There are demobilisation of men coming back, the possibility of fresh building and new accommodation. We cannot please everybody, but we believe that it is in the interests of everybody that the date should be fixed as a certain date by Order in Council which should be made when circumstances have disposed of this. And in this matter we have the precedent of the last war.
Clause 3 deals with the question of savings. No doubt after the decision of the Court of Appeal there were cases—there were not many cases—where notices were given to terminate tenancy, some of which took effect before I gave my announcement in the sense that the tenant went out. We felt there was great difficulty in going back beyond the date when the Government's intention to legislate was announced by me on 13th June. Let me take the case of a notice given although it did not become effective. You never know where you are. The landlord may have taken action on the assumption that the notice was, as the notice was at the time, a perfectly valid notice. A tenant may have given notice and he may have taken action. Although I agree that this is a matter about which you could argue, we feel that it would be


wrong to invalidate notices which have been given before that date. Therefore, that is the basis on which Clause 3 applies.
I should like to say a word about Subsection (3) of Clause 3 which deals with this case. Suppose under one of these leases a notice had been given by one side or the other after the Court of Appeal and before the passing of this Bill. We want to see that that notice remains valid. It might have been said that, having been given in a lease, it was not invalidated. Clause 4 is the application Clause applying the principle of the Bill to Scottish law. I do not think I need comment on that at this stage; I have the Lord Advocate by my side. Clause 5 deals with Northern Ireland. This Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland but Sub-section (2) of Clause 5 makes clear what might otherwise have been doubtful, that the Parliament of Northern Ireland can, if they desire, legislate on these lines.
The only other matter with which I want to deal, is to tell the House that we shall be putting down a few Amendments. They are, most of them, of a drafting character to meet points to which solicitors and others have drawn our attention. There is only one point of any substance and I am sure that it will not be controversial. I think that it is right that we should expressly provide that this Bill should apply to the Crown. It is unlikely that the Crown has become tenant under a lease which has been invalidated under a decision by the Court of Appeal, but it is possible, because a great many things have been done and a great many agreements entered into, and if there are any such cases they should be put right.

Mr. Silverman: What about local authorities?

The Attorney-General: They will be covered, anyhow. I am afraid that I have been rather more technical than usual in moving the Second Reading of this Bill but I feel that there are a number of solicitors and others who are interested in this matter and that hon. Members would wish it to be dealt with fully.

Earl Winterton: I ought to disclose my interest in this matter and say that as a director and in other respects I am affected by

the Bill, but I only want to say a word of gratitude to the Government for bringing in the Bill. It was essential to do so. This matter has caused, in some respects, serious dislocation in business circles because of the absence of a proper definition. I am particularly grateful to the Government not only for attempting to make that definition clear, but for taking certain specific action in such cases by a declaration on their part, and I think that it will be welcomed in the business world.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I am sure that the House will join with me in thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for his careful exposition of the very technical terms of this Bill. The fact that that explanation was necessary should give rise to a number of questions in the minds of hon. Members. The problem is very simply stated: It is that tenancies expressed to be for "the duration"—if I may use the colloquial term—have been held by the courts to be invalid, that is to say, they have been held to be agreements or tenancies of such kind that neither the one side nor the other can come to the courts to enforce them, and the Government have decided that they shall be validated by making them tenancies for 10 years, subject to determination by a month's notice on either side after the end of the war, that date to be fixed by an Order in Council.
That, in short, is the whole story and yet, such is the intricacy, such are the complications of our land laws and the laws of landlord and tenant, that we require these six pages of elaborate and carefully drafted provisions. Speaking for myself, I think these provisions have been very carefully drawn up and they provide for the contingencies which it is the expressed desire of the Government to meet. But again I would suggest to the House that this gives rise to another question. Here is revealed in a court of law a transparent deficiency in our Common Law: that it was unable, owing to the binding of precedents, to comply with the obvious intention of parties to an agreement. It arose in connection with tenancies, but it is far better known to my right hon. and learned Friend than it is to me that these deficiencies in our Common Law become revealed again and again. How often has one heard judges say, "I am very sorry, but I regret that


I am bound to decide in this way," and one might almost imply from the judgment of the Court of Appeal that they were a little reluctant to have to decide in the sense in which they did. Does it not follow from these disclosed deficiencies that we should have every year in this House an annual Law Bill to deal with all these deficiencies, and not deal with them one by one, or to deal with questions affecting land as having a priority over those that affect the limbs or the well-being of people who suffer from accidents, or whatever it may be? We ought to have a system of an annnual Law Bill that would tidy up the law as we went along.

Earl Winterton: May I interrupt my hon. and learned Friend who is dealing with such an interesting point? Is not the real answer, that if Parliament would only be more careful in passing its Statutes these difficulties would not arise? It is the words put into Acts of Parliament that lead to difficulties. [An HON MEMBER: "Not in this case."] No, but frequently.

Mr. Hughes: In answer to the Noble Lord, I am sorry to say that although deficiencies in the drafting of Statutes, and in the drawing up of Orders and Regulations, often give rise to difficulties in the courts, it is the ancient Common Law, based upon precedents and decisions in the courts, which gives rise also to quite as many difficulties. Perhaps I should beg the pardon of the House for having enlarged upon this very general topic, and go back to the particular problem with which the Bill is concerned.
I would like to express my appreciation that the Bill deals not only with the ordinary tenancies to which the Attorney-General has referred, but has made specific provision for dealing with agricultural tenancies. It is perfectly normal and reasonable to provide in the case of somebody who has vacated his house and left it empty for the duration, that a month's notice shall be sufficient at the end of the war to determine the tenancy; but such considerations would be most improper in the case of an agricultural tenancy which cannot properly, with fairness to landlord or tenant, be determined except at the normal quarter days, or better still, at the end of the agricultural year. One finds in Clause 1 (1) specific provisions that the general application of a month

after the end of the war shall not apply to agricultural tenancies but shall apply in the manner which I have already indicated.
The second specific matter to which I would like to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend is the construction of tenancy agreements. The ordinary rule under the Bill is to be the rule that if the term "the duration" or "the end of the war" is used, that shall mean the end of the whole war upon which we are now engaged, as defined by the Order in Council, which means, in ordinary parlance, waiting until the end of the war with Japan. I venture to suggest that in almost every case where we will find this term "the duration" or "the end of the war," the intention in the minds of the parties who entered into the agreement was the end of hostilities in Europe, the end of the war with Germany. "Very well" says the Attorney-General, "that can be established by looking at the terms of the agreement, or by looking at certain extrinsic evidence." But the terms of the Bill are these: That that presumption that the end of the war means the end of the war all over the world can only be overthrown if it can be established that what was meant was the end of the war against Germany, and if that can be shown by admissible evidence.
The rules of evidence, according to our Common Law, are in many instances rather strange. One can look—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman)—at the document itself, and at certain extrinsic evidence, but there is one thing that, according to the law of this country, the court is not allowed to consider at all, and that is the statement of the parties themselves as to what they intended. Now in ordinary practice between one man and another, in ordinary commercial affairs, there is nothing upon which we rely so much in order to interpret things as declared expressions of intention. It so happens, however, that according to our rules of evidence, according to our Common Law, declared expressions of intention are inadmissible. If a document includes the term "the duration" or "the end of the war," the parties would not be allowed to say "What I meant was this." I do suggest that something should be added to this


Clause for the purpose of defining and ascertaining clearly the intention of the parties and the fact that they did not mean the end of the total war but really the end of the war with Germany and that the laws of evidence should be relaxed. My right hon. and learned Friend promised to bring forward certain Amendments for our consideration on the Committee stage, and I hope he will consider an Amendment on those lines.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Surely a great deal depends on the date when the agreement was entered into. If it was entered into before the war with Japan presumably it would be the end of the war with Germany.

Mr. Hughes: I quite agree that that would be a factor which would be admissible, and that it would not require any declaration of intention. I am sure the Attorney-General would agree that the factor of the date would be most material to a tribunal in arriving at a conclusion as to what were the intentions of the parties. But I am pointing out the difficulties that will arise in agreements entered into after Japan entered the war.
There is another matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the Attorney-General and to ask the approval of the House. The Bill states that the date of the end of the war and of hostilities shall be declared by Order in Council. In the experience of many Members the terms used are often very varied in the agreements for which the Bill provides. One finds
"For the war," "For the duration of the war," "For the period of hostilities," and "For the period of military operations." I suggest that the Order in Council, without prejudice to the generality of its provisions—to use the draftsman's term—should include specifically all the terms which are commonly used, so that a court of law is not faced with the difficulty of having to say whether "the period of military operations" is comprehended within the term "end of the war," or the term "end of hostilities." The form of the Order in Council should comprehend all the phrases generally found in agreements of this kind. In Bills of this kind, which deal only with matters which will arise over a period of time, I am always inclined to examine them to see whether the Government are optimistic or pessimistic about

the end of the war. I find on looking at Clause 1, Sub-section (1) that in order to make certain that they shall cover the duration of the war they make provision for a period of 10 years. That shows quite clearly that they regard 10 years as being the only safe term bringing within it the end of the war. As if that were not enough, the Sub-section says:
any agreement …, which purports to create a tenancy for the duration of the war shall take effect as an agreement for a tenancy for a term of ten years … if the war ends before the expiration of that term. …
In other words, the Government say, "We fix on 10 years, but we are not quite certain whether the war will end within that period." I am sorry to detect this pessimism in the Bill, but I am glad to turn to a note of optimism that will be found in Clause 6. The Bill contains provisions for determining the end of the war with relation to the war as a whole, or with relation to the end of the war with any particular State with which His Majesty is at war. Clause 6, Sub-section (2) says:
… the expressions 'the war' and 'hostilities' mean … the war and hostilities in which His Majesty is engaged at the passing of this Act.
In other words, if His Majesty's Government should be involved in hostilities with any other State than those with which we are involved at the present time they would not be comprehended within the terms of this Bill, or, to put it in another way, although they want 10 years or more in which to be certain that the war will be over they say they are satisfied that no other State is coming into the war against us. On behalf of my colleagues on these benches I welcome the Bill in its general tenor, and I express the hope that some of the suggestions I have put forward will meet with the approval of the Attorney-General.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I do not want to detain the House for more than a few moments, because the point I wanted to put has already been partly made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes). The point made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) in regard to the date should be emphasised, and I would like, from this side of the House, to bring it again to the notice of the Attorney-General. We should fix the date, because it is clear that any-


one who made an agreement before December, 1941, could not possibly have had the Japanese war in mind. I think the Attorney-General should reconsider the point, because many people made agreements rapidly and hurriedly. Some went into the Forces and sent their families off to live with relations and let their houses, some gave up their businesses and shops, and moved from one place to another, either on Government work or on work connected with their business and let their homes and premises. People who made these rapid agreements—and there is not the slightest doubt there must be many—before December, 1941, must have had only the war in Europe in mind: the Japanese war had not begun.
I am not sufficiently well informed as to the number of people involved to justify my moving any Amendment myself on the Committee stage, but I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider between now and then an alteration in the Bill in this respect. Although the Bill seeks to remove injustices it may inflict many more if it remains as it stands. I rather think, too, that the period of 10 years is too long, especially if, the point I have just referred to remains as it is in the Bill. Seven years might well be enough. With those few remarks, I beg the Attorney-General to consider whether some adjustment in regard to the first point I made can be achieved so that hardship will not be inflicted on this particular class of people.

Sir Stanley Reed: I should like to say a sentence or two in support of the argument which has been put before the House. Many of my constituents are very anxious about this issue of the duration of the war. I hope I understand my right hon. and learned Friend correctly in assuming that the Order in Council betokening the end of the duration of the war may be irrespective of any actual peace treaty that may be signed, because many of us apparently contemplate, knowing something of the Continent, that there may be no peace treaty formally for an indeterminate number of years, and the lack of that definite international document would not be held to debar the Government from issuing this Order in Council. My other point is that some people thought their contracts were entered into for the duration of the war with Germany alone.

Will not my right hon. and learned Friend consider the point that the duration shall apply to the war in which we were actively engaged at the time the contract was entered into, because an amendment of this very excellent Bill on those lines would go very far indeed to allay the anxiety and uncertainties which are now distressing a considerable number of people.

Sir John Mellor: In giving my support to the Second Reading I should own up to being myself a party to an agreement of the kind covered by the Bill. I should be sorry to describe myself by reason of that fact as having a personal interest in the Bill, because I am sure that neither the other party to the agreement nor I would ever have contemplated for a moment taking advantage of the decision of the Court of Appeal to repudiate the agreement we have made. I think an agreement should be regarded as an agreement even if it is not legally enforceable. This brings me to my only quarrel with the terms of the Bill. I think it is unfortunate that in Clause 3 (1, b) provision should be made to enable those people who were smart enough to give notice to terminate agreements before 13th June to get away with it.
I am putting down an Amendment to omit that paragraph. Admittedly the House does not as a rule like retrospective legislation, and I think we should always avoid it if we possibly can. We are having retrospective legislation in this case and I think rightly, but I do not know why it should go back only to 13th June, the date when my right hon. and learned Friend announced the intention of the Government to legislate. I cannot see any objection to taking it further back and making it retrospective either to the date in February when the Court of Appeal gave its decision hi Lace v. Chandler, or even to the beginning of the war. The only people who would be hit by making it retrospective to that time would be the few who had no great respect for their agreements and were taking advantage of a legal technicality to get out of them. There is one question that has puzzled a good many people. Why did the Government delay so long after the decision of the Court of Appeal in February before announcing on 13th June that they would legislate? A good many people have felt that that


was an unnecessary delay and it has certainly penalised those people who have received notices before 13th June. Fortunately I think there have been very few cases in which people have sought on the strength of this decision to escape from their agreements, and that fact is in itself a tribute to the business honesty of the people of the country.

Mr. Silverman: I should like to join in expressing my appreciation of the extreme lucidity with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has presented a rather technical measure. Though I am by no means prepared to oppose it I am a little inclined to think that it uses a very hefty steel hammer to crack a very small nut. I do not agree with the criticism of my hon. and learned Friend about the Common Law. I think the Common Law of the country has shown itself capable, over many centuries, of applying, with a sense of complete fairness, in changing circumstances, common sense principles to the relationships between the citizens of the country, and I do not think it would be improved at all by an annual Bill interfering with it. The decision of the Court of Appeal which necessitated this Bill was a very sensible decision in accordance with the Common Law principle that if two people make an agreement which they wish to keep enforceable it shall be possible to say what the agreement is and for what period it is to endure. All that the Court of Appeal has said is, If you put into your agreement a form of words which makes its duration completely indeterminate, so that it could presumably go on for ever or conceivably terminate to-morrow, that is no agreement at all. The Court of Appeal was doing nothing new in saying that such a term of years was not recognised by our law. At the same time I think the Government are right in their view that there was a particular problem which had to be dealt with, but what was the problem? We are driven right back to the circumstances in which a great many of these agreements were made. I am certain that if it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the real intention in people's minds at the time these agreements were made, 10 years is altogether too long.

The Attorney-General: Whether we put in 10 or 999 years makes no difference

at all. It is simply a question of form. If it had been 999 years it would have been rather pessimistic, but the result is that the agreement should be terminated by either party on the termination of the war.

Mr. Silverman: I am grateful for that, but I do not think it affects my point that very few, if any, people who were parties to agreements made in 1940, 1941 or 1942 contemplated that the war would last for 10 years from that date. It was no part of their intention, if the war should last for 999 years, that they would be granting a lease for that period. The real intention behind the Bill is to give legal validity to what was really intended by the parties who entered into these agreements. If we look to what was really intended, I say that when the Government fix a period—I agree a maximum period—of ten years, they have fixed it altogether too long, because it is far beyond what people intended at the time.
When one looks at other Government Measures which are intended to come into effect after the end of the war, or which depend on the duration of the war for the period of their effect, one sees that the Government were not nearly so pessimistic as they appear to have been in this Bill. For instance, the Education Bill, which we were told was intended to come into force after the end of the war, is dated as coming into force some time in April, 1945. In certain provisions of the War Damage Act, which was passed in 1941, the period of the duration of the war was fixed at five years in 1941, so that the Act would expire in 1946. In putting in this Bill a maximum period of ten years, the Government are going far beyond what was in the minds of the parties to the agreements to which the Bill is intended to give validity. It would have been quite enough to have said five years. I hope that I am not making a purely technical point. Everybody who has spoken in the Debate so far appears to assume that the merits are all on one side, and that if we are to look at the common sense, the merits of it, we ought to validate the leases for as long a period as possible. I am unable to share that view, at any rate, in all circumstances.
A case of which I have some professional knowledge is that of a man and wife with two small children living, in 1941, in an area that was subject to heavy


enemy action. It was the desire of the Government, and rightly so, that children should not be kept in such areas and that they should be taken to safer areas. A great many people did what this gentleman did. He could not afford to keep two houses going, and he sought for means of letting the house which he occupied and taking another house for his family in a safer area. In order to fix a period, he chose the period of the war, the expectation being at that time that enemy action would continue for the duration of the war. He let his house to a young couple just married. It consisted of a number of reception rooms, four bedrooms, two bathrooms, two gardens and garage, and he was compelled to take very restricted accommodation elsewhere. That was a right and proper thing for him to do, but it would be wrong to say that the agreement should continue indefinitely or to say that, if a maximum period is to be fixed, it should be as high as ten years. I suggest that on the Committee stage it would be worth while to consider inserting some kind of saving Clause to cover cases of hardship.
I observe in one of the Clauses that where the tenancy comes to an end, it does not entitle the lessor to possession, because the lessee might well have rights under the Rent Restrictions Acts. Under those Acts, supposing you did not have the Bill at all, in all those cases to which the Rent Restrictions Acts apply—and I submit that that is the great majority of cases—the tenant would be at no great disadvantage, because he would be completely protected against notice to quit or an action for possession, by the Rent Acts, except in certain circumstances.
One of those circumstances is that the landlord requires the house for his own occupation and, in addition to that, is able to prove that greater hardship would be caused by refusing him possession of those premises than would be caused by granting him possession of them. I suggest that this class of case—I think there are many such cases—has been completely overlooked. In the case of houses that are not protected by the Rent Acts, no doubt a special provision of that kind might be made. I am not suggesting that any difference should be made between those premises which are protected and those which are not protected in this respect. I am saying that, suppose the war were to continue longer than most

of us hope it may, and suppose the result of this continuance and the result of the Bill unamended were to be that very much greater hardship were to be caused to the owner of the premises by reason of his being kept out of possession of them than is caused to the occupier of the premises; in those circumstances the court ought to have a discretion which they could exercise in favour of an owner who requires a house for the occupation of himself or his family.
I do not want to say any more than that about it. The over-riding consideration, as I think everybody admits, is: What did the parties really mean when they entered into this agreement? I quite agree with what was said a few moments ago from the benches behind me that an agreement ought to be kept, even though the form of words chosen to embody the agreement was such as not to give legal effect to the real intention. I say that we must look at what the real intention was and not at some fictitious or imaginary intention. I do not think anybody who entered into these agreements at that time ever considered that they were involving themselves in a 10-year lease or anything so long as that. If the Government insist upon having the Bill exactly as it is, without any saving Clause for hardship of any kind, they will do more harm by the Bill than the evil which the Bill is to cure.

Mr. Turton: Surely the answer to the hon. Member is that the parties only intended the term to be the duration of the war and that unless the war goes on for more than 10 years they are getting what they intended. I rise because, in my view but only from a cursory glance at the Bill, it appears that the owners of agricultural holdings are not getting what they intended. If two parties had rented an agricultural holding for the duration of the war it is clear that they did not want an agreement from year to year but something which would end more abruptly than that. As the Bill is drafted, it will deny to the two parties what they have agreed to get between them. I would put my point in two short illustrations. There may have been in some parts of the country, a farmer or landlord, whose farming was interrupted by defence work and could not enjoy the whole of the farm by reason of that defence work. He, therefore, when the War Office or some other Department took part of his farm, let


the remainder to a tenant for the duration of the war at a much lower agricultural rent, thinking that by that means he could get that small portion farmed, and hoping that when the war was over he would be able to enjoy the whole of his farm.
That man will be denied that right, and when the war is over all he can do is to give his tenant 12 months' notice, and under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act he will also have to pay him compensation to the amount of up to two years' rent. I think that man is not being treated very fairly. One may put the other side of it. There are numbers of cases of small men who for war purposes have wanted allotments or small agricultural holdings to provide food for their families during the war. Some of them have, indeed, engaged to take land for the duration of the war at a far higher rent than they could possibly have done during peace-time. With the passing of this Clause 1 (c) it appears to me these men will have to continue with the allotment or holding at that higher rent for 12 months after the date which is given by Order in Council as the end of the war. That seems to me to be a measure of injustice.
I do not think that the agricultural part of this Bill has been so wisely designed as the remainder of it. I quite agree that the remainder of this Bill clearly sets out what was the intention of the parties at the time they made the agreement. I think the same treatment should be given to those who have gone in for an agricultural agreement. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend to think over Clause 1 (c) again and see if something can be done to avoid the pitfalls I have suggested.

Mr. Mathers: I am glad that this Bill has been brought forward because to me it gives for the first time some indication in certain respects of the shape of things to come. Some time ago I tried to get from the Prime Minister an indication of what kind of view people could take of agreements that had been entered into which terminated with the war, or were for the period of the war. I cited to the right hon. Gentleman the case of the agreement with the railway companies operating at the present time. One might say that the nation has taken a lease of the railways for the duration

of the war. In answer to my questions, which were put with the idea of providing those in the service in which I have spent all my working life with some idea of the kind of interpretation they might put on agreements of that kind, the right hon. Gentleman was very indeterminate. He would not go the length of saying how the point of time that represented the end of the war would be fixed. He would not even agree it was likely that at the end of hostilities there would be an Order in Council passed appointing the date which represented the end of the war. He said that these were matters for the courts to determine, and he indicated also that, of course, there were other people to take into account besides this Government, meaning, as I understood him at the time, our Allies.
In seeing reference to an Order in Council determining the end of the war, I take courage and hope from that, that perhaps here we have an indication of the kind of shape things will take in the days, which may be far ahead, or which may be immediately ahead, when the war comes to an end. I listened with interest to the idea that 10 years is a very pessimistic figure to put upon the period of the war; but often during the war we have wondered if it could be got over in 10 years, and if we were still in that mood we should be consoling ourselves now with the consideration that we were half-way through.
The principal point however that I wanted to raise is that which has been dwelt upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). I think it is very important that consideration should be given to the position of people who, in all good faith, early in the war, handed over the tenancy of their houses to friends. I know of cases where husband and wife were living in a house, of which they had become the owners or were in process of becoming the owners, by paying for the house by instalments. They handed over the house, the husband going away with the Colours, and the wife going back to live with her parents, with the idea that immediately they needed the house it would come back into their possession. They have had to charge rent, but they have charged only enough to cover the actual outgoings upon the house. By the Rent Restrictions Acts they have handed over the house, and they cannot get it back, although the


husband is back from the Army, and he and his wife are living in the very circumstances which they were doing their best to provide against by buying the house.

Mr. Silverman: Unless it is a lease affected by this Bill, the Rent Restrictions Acts give them a remedy. I was pointing out that, in connection with houses affected by this Bill, there should be an equal remedy.

Mr. Mathers: I cannot go into the legal position, but there are people who are deprived of the opportunity of living in their own houses because they have handed them over, in all good will, to friends. The friendship has become a thing of the past, smashed beyond repair, but the tenancy of the house remains with the people who were allowed to go into it to meet their need at the time. If it were possible to provide in this Bill for cases of that kind and for the courts to determine where the greater hardship lay, a real injustice would be removed. I am sure that the Bill is to be welcomed, and I hope that it will be used to the greatest advantage, to bring decent treatment and fair play to all concerned. The Lord Advocate probably thought, when I got up, that I was going to raise some Scottish point. I read over the Clause applying this Bill to Scotland, and I could see nothing wrong with it. It seems to me admirable for the purpose, so far as my poor knowledge—I am not a legal man—goes; and I hope that the Bill will be quickly brought into law, and made as useful as possible, for the purpose explained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in presenting it to the House.

The Attorney-General: By the leave of the House, may I, out of courtesy to those who have spoken, say that we will, of course, give careful consideration to the points that have been raised? They are, in the main, Committee points, and I do not think the House will either expect or permit me to reply to them.

Dr. Russell Thomas: May I ask—because a good many of us are interested in the point raised about agreements made before 1941—that these agreements should not require extraneous evidence, but should be regarded as expiring at the end of the war in Europe? May I press my right hon. and learned Friend to consider this point?

The Attorney-General: That will be one of the points to be considered before the Committee stage.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Pym.]

Committee To-morrow.

PENSIONS AND GRANTS (CANCER CASES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

Mr. Lipson: The House, for the greater part of the day, has been considering what it should do with its surplus war material—that material for which it no longer has any use. I want the House, for the short time available, to consider what is happening at the moment to certain human material—exService men—for whom the Services have no longer any use, and, particularly, I want to draw attention to the refusal by the Minister of Pensions to grant pensions to men who have been discharged from the Services suffering from cancer.
I think I can best illustrate the hardship caused by this decision if I give two instances, with both of which, I think, my right hon. Friend is familiar. They are constituents of mine. One is a man of 36 who is still alive, and the other, a man in the 30s, died early this year, so that in the latter case I am pleading for a pension for his widow. The first man, Mr. Green, joined the Army at the outbreak of war. He was called up because he was a Territorial and had been in the Territorial Forces before war broke out for 12 years, and I think the House will realise from that fact that he was not the kind of man to wait for the outbreak of war before preparing himself for the defence of his country. He was graded A.1, was sent abroad, was at Dunkirk and served for four and three-quarter years. In May of this year he was discharged from the Army on medical grounds. The disease was then described as inflammation of the bronchus, but I was told by the Minister that means cancer. The man had been married eight years before he was called to the Forces, and his wife assured me


that, during the whole of that time, he had never had a day's illness. In May, he was discharged and was sent to an emergency hospital, and, after he had been there a few days, he was discharged from the hospital, not cured or in any way better, but because the beds were required for war casualties.
During the time he was in hospital, his wife was given an allowance of 30s. a week to maintain herself and a small child. When the man came out of hospital, the allowance was stopped. Apparently, the Minister has power to grant 30s. a week to a man receiving medical treatment after discharge by the Army on medical grounds up to a period of six months. In this case the 30s. ceased when the man came out. I cannot see either logic or humanity in an action of this kind, in that when the man was in hospital, and there were only the wife and child to maintain, he was allowed 30s., and that when he came out, and the wife had to maintain the husband as well, and he was put on a special diet, which was more expensive than a normal diet, the 30s. was stopped. My attention was drawn to this and I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend, and I acknowledge that in view of the fact that the man was discharged not cured, but because his bed was required, the 30s. was restored. But I would point out that unless action had been taken by somebody in authority the 30s. would have been stopped, because the wife had received the official notice from the Ministry of Pensions to say that that was the case.
I want to show what further difficulties the wife has which illustrate what many other people experience. When I went to the house I said, "I assume you are getting national health benefit, as your husband is sick." She said, "No, when the agent came from the company he said that I was not entitled to health benefit because of this 30s." I took that up with the Minister of Health and found that that was again wrong, but here was this poor woman driven from pillar to post and not given anything extra; and it was only because action was taken that the matter was put right. When the man was in the Army, the wife was working at a munition factory and earning between £3 and £4 a week. I visited their home, and it was a very good home. When

he was discharged she had to give up her work because her husband is a hopeless invalid and cannot walk and has to be taken out in a bath-chair, and cannot do anything for himself. He has been refused a pension. That is very hard for a man who has gone through so much, and given so much for his country.
When I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend he said that the consensus of opinion is that cancer is in no way caused or aggravated by military service, I find that in conflict with the concession made to this House, that the onus of proof should be with the Ministry when they refuse a pension. If the doctors say they do not know the cause of cancer, how can they say that cancer is in no way responsible? I would also draw the attention of the House to a question asked by a Member of this House—a distinguished member of the medical profession—the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little). He asked the Prime Minister if he would have an inquiry held into the number of cases of young men in the Services who were discharged, suffering from cancer, the number being much larger than in civil life. My medical friends tell me that it is very unusual for a man of 36 to suffer from cancer. I, therefore, say there is sufficient reason for assuming that in some way the man's military service had aggravated the cancer. I would like here to read an extract from a letter which I received from the Secretary of the British Legion of Scotland, whose attention had been drawn to a question which I asked my right hon. Friend and the answer which the Minister gave me. He said:
I note the Minister gave his usual answer, that it is the laid-down medical opinion that cancer is not due to service. I also notice that he added that this case in question has been taken to a tribunal and the same decision has been arrived at there.
This particular case has not yet gone to the tribunal, I may say,
The British Legion of Scotland has been representing a great majority of the cases which have been before the Scottish pensions appeal tribunals, and in view of the attitude of the Minister in regard to diseases, in which it is quoted that the consensus of medical opinion was against a decision favourable to the claimant, we consulted four or five leading medical specialists, in Edinburgh, on certain of these diseases, including cancer. The opinion that we obtained was that, in spite of the fact that the consensus of medical opinion would in general be against an ad-


mission that these diseases were likely to be attributable to war service, that there would always be exceptions, where the medical opinion in a particular case would be in opposition to this opinion on generalities, and it may interest you to know that among the cases of cancer which we have represented at the tribunals, we have been successful in getting the tribunal's decision in favour of entitlement in three instances.
I submit, therefore, that the Minister should exercise in a case such as I have quoted his discretionary power. May I refer to the second case, of a Mr. Stanley? This man, also A.1, joined in November, 1940, the Royal Tank Regiment, which I think indicates that he was of good physique.

Mr. Bartle Bull: How old was he?

Mr. Lipson: In the early thirties. His health deteriorated in the Army and he was then transferred to the Royal Army Pay Corps. He was treated originally for nervous heart. He complained to the medical officer that he was feeling ill and the medical officer—a woman, I regret to say—accused him of malingering. The men in his unit were so incensed at this that they persuaded the sergeant-major to get the medical officer to reverse her decision. Then she agreed to let him go to Birmingham to see a specialist. The day after he came back, he collapsed; he was sent to hospital, and, some time after that, he died. According to the medical certificate, his death was due to tuberculosis. His wife questioned this, and insisted on a post mortem, and it was found that he was suffering from cancer. The wife definitely says that this man's health deteriorated, so far as cancer was concerned, in view of the fact that he never received proper treatment in the Army. I would point out, too, that if a man in the Army complains of not feeling well and he cannot satisfy the medical officer of health that he is right, he is compelled to obey orders and, therefore, his deterioration may be worse than it would be in civil life when, in similar circumstances, a man would naturally rest and recover. In this instance, too, the wife is left without any pension at all because pension has been refused.
I want to say in conclusion that I am quite ashamed when I go to homes of this kind. I have been to both these houses; I know the circumstances and I have seen the treatment which these men and their dependants have received from

the Government after such service. I feel that this House, as well as the Minister, has a very great responsibility. The country does not want instances of that kind, it does not want men and their dependants to have to resort to public assistance. Whatever may be said, the poor—and I respect them for it—in very large numbers hate public assistance, and these people deserve better treatment. They have to be maintained somehow. I submit that the least we can do is to give them a pension for such of their life as remains, and for their dependants after them. My last word is this, that this causes a great deal of bitterness amongst women-folk. They say, "The country has had my man, they have had all they want, and then they throw him aside as of no further use." Do let us remove that reproach. If the Minister says he has not the powers, I say "Come and ask for the powers. The House will give them and the country will give them."

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am glad to have the opportunity of giving a real reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), because he has raised a serious matter. The question is whether a pension should be granted because of a disability or a disease, attributable to, or aggravated by, war service, or whether I should grant a pension irrespective of those two tests. That is the point at issue.

Mr. Silverman: Not at all.

Sir W. Womersley: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make my case. He can make his case afterwards, if there is time. A demand was made by this House some time ago, on behalf of those who had been disabled, that they should have a privilege. That was agreed to, and we cannot have it both ways. It is laid down definitely in the Royal Warrant which, of course, can be altered, that the disease must be due to, or aggravated by, service. We took away the words, "directly attributable," or, "materially aggravated," and made it as reasonable as possible to get dawn to practically almost every case except a few, and the few include these cases of cancer. I must take the consensus of medical opinion in arriving at a decision as to whether a certain disease is due to, or has been aggravated by, service. Consensus of


medical opinion means the views of medical men recognised as speaking with authority on the disability in question with regard to the effect of war service on its development. Immediately after the last war the then Minister obtained the views of such authorities through the Disabilities Committee, comprising experts nominated by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and the Medical Research Council, and the entitlement practice of the Department was based on their advice. A similar practice was maintained throughout the years between the wars, and in particular by reference of questions of difficulty to the Medical Research Council and to independent medical experts appointed by the Presidents of the Royal Colleges. This procedure has been used to the fullest extent since the war, and extended by the holding of special conferences with eminent specialists on new problems as they arise. As an example of the obtaining of a consensus of medical opinion, I may refer to the question of the possible relationship of cancer to war service. Cancer is one of the commonest fatal diseases of man and occurs in all races. I am told its apparent increase in recent years is, probably, largely due to the improvement in methods of diagnosis. Its incience in the Army, so far as it is possible to estimate it, is no more than that amongst a similar population of the same age in civilian life.
Although most forms of cancer are more common in the old, some forms are more common in the young. It is, therefore, inevitable that, from time to time, cancer may show itself during service, and my Department has to consider whether or not service has played any part in its onset or development. Although the actual cause of cancer is not known, there has for a long time been a general medical agreement as to certain conditions which may possibly be casually related to its onset, and as to other conditions which are certainly not so related. The Medical Research Council, at the request of my Department, convened a conference of experts which gave comprehensive advice on the conditions affecting different forms of cancer, and the sites in which they occur, and this advice can be taken as constituting a consensus of medical opinion. It is, in general, to the effect that it is only in exceptional cases that the development of cancer may possibly

be attributed to, or influenced by, a previous injury or disease arising out of war service, and certain criteria are laid down as affording a basis for decision. Each case of cancer is considered by my Department in the light of this advice, and, although it has not been possible to accept the vast majority of cases, yet in an appreciable number, where a reasonable doubt could be said to exist, entitlement has been conceded. So it is not true to say we have not granted pensions even for cancer if circumstances warrant it.
The point at issue is whether the case of my hon. Friend's constituent comes under the conditions that I have stated or not, and I had to give it very serious consideration on that account. As regards the allowance where we cannot accepted the suggestion that the disability was due to war service, that was a concession made by the Government on ray recommendation, to do the very thing that my hon. Friend suggests, so that a man should be able to live for a time until other arrangements could be made. The position of a man discharged from the Forces for a disability, not attributable to or aggravated by service, therefore, has to come under the same social service conditions as the civilian population; those conditions are there and he can avail himself of them. If the amount received under those social services is not sufficient it is for the House to see that they are improved, and not to say that, because a man has actually served, whatever is the matter with him, when he comes out I should take the responsibility. This man received this weekly allowance which has been granted for six months after discharge to men suffering from some disability, not due to or aggravated by service, to help them along the way but, in addition to that, he should have been receiving National Health Insurance, which brought the family income up to 51s. a week. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was not."] That is not my fault. He should have made application for it. If the representative of the approved society said they were not entitled to it, he was not acting in accordance with instructions from his society, because that is the definite understanding.
This is a matter which has not been in vogue for a very long time We brought it into operation because we foresaw this difficulty and wanted to meet it if we


could. This 25s. was allowed to Green and his wife and 5s. to the child. In addition there was 21s. which he should have received from National Health Insurance, and is now receiving, and he is getting an income of 51s. a week. I hope it will not go out that we were expecting him to live on 30s. That was the supplementation of his National Health Insurance. I gave the case the greatest consideration. On the Regulations as laid down, and taking into account all the points I have mentioned, on the concensus of medical opinion I had to refuse the case. I was sorry to do so but I must carry out the Regulations, because it has to be either one thing or the other. The only thing I can suggest is that, if hon. Members cared to take it to the appeal tribunal, they would have to deal with the matter in the same way as I have, and if they gave a different decision it would be final and binding on both parties. I have already explained to my hon. Friend that as soon as I knew this man had been discharged from hospital, and as soon as he informed me that that was not because he was cured but because they wanted the room for wounded men coming from Normandy, I said at once that it would not mean the stopping of his allowance. It was immediately resumed and the arrears were paid. That shows what a useful function a Member of Parliament can perform. When he brings a case like this to my notice, I immediately take action, and I will do so in other cases as far as I can under the Regulations. When it comes to a question of altering the Regulations, I want the House to consider both sides of the question.
As regards Mr. Stanley, my information is that he was not informed that he was a malingerer. I should be very dissatisfied with any medical officer who told a man he was a malingerer unless he had clear evidence to that effect. I have a full statement of the case, and it seems to me that there has been some misunderstanding. The statement shows clearly that Mr. Stanley received the medical attention that was necessary and that he had X-rays taken. In my view, he got far better attention from the medical authorities in the Army that he could have got in any hospital. They paid special attention to him. I would like my hon. Friend to see the record, and I think that he will withdraw his charge that the man was

neglected. Mrs. Stanley should apply for the contributory widow's pension. She is entitled to it, and if she has children she can get supplementation. She will not be much worse off than if she had a pension from my Department. It is not true to say that a woman is deprived of any pension, because we ourselves urge people, when we cannot grant a pension, to make application for a contributory pension; and if they cannot get it, I may then get a pension from the Royal Patriotic Fund. I am glad that this matter has been raised because the question of those diseases—there is only a short list of them—that cannot be attributed to service is one that exercises the attention of many hon. Members. I thought that this was a good opportunity for them to understand how we handle the matter so that they can advise their constituents accordingly.

Colonel Clarke: Is not failure on the part of a medical officer to diagnose cancer, with the result that the man is treated wrongly and loses his life, considered an aggravating cause? I have heard of cases where men have been wrongly diagnosed, have been treated for something else, and have died.

Sir W. Womersley: If it were a case of wrong diagnosis, and that was shown to me clearly as the reason for a man's life being shortened, it would be a case for a pension.

Mr. Silverman: I am afraid that there is very little time left, and I wish only to say that nobody doubts the Minister's good intentions in this matter. It all turns on our old friend the onus of proof. The position is that the medical profession is unable to say what is the cause of cancer, and therefore, it becomes impossible to ask the claimant to satisfy the Minister that his cancer was due to war service. Nobody can satisfy the Minister on that point.

Sir W. Womersley: We do not ask him to do that.

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. DEPUTY., SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.